“Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night.” – Margot Channing as played by Better Davis in “All about Eve”

It is the evening before my test drive of Tesla’s new Model S, the $100,000 sedan intended to change everyone’s thinking about what an electric vehicle can be or do.  But what the car can be or do is secondary to the impact the company is having on the automobile industry.

What is interesting is that Tesla’s impact has almost nothing to do with the car itself, but it is important to first understand how the car itself is influencing industry thinking about infotainment systems, safety and connectivity.

My test drive tomorrow in Washington, DC, follows an impromptu test drive last week in Silicon Valley.  I did not have the nerve to drive the car, which was privately owned, instead experiencing the naked, neck-snapping EV aggression from the comfort and safety of the passenger seat.

The Model S is a coiled spring capable of reaching 60mph in 4.4 seconds.  Along with that speed comes balance and poise with extra attention paid to steering and suspension. 

Of course, in the automotive infotainment industry the Model S has garnered attention for its 17” center stack display and embedded connectivity.  The display is impressive and the system’s access to streaming audio or Internet radio content sources via the embedded modem is the ultimate in convenience.  (Every competing system in the market accesses the driver’s mobile phone and data plan to deliver these services.)  The wireless access is free for the first three months and Tesla has yet to announce the pricing or pricing tiers thereafter.

More impressive than the convenient access to content, though, is the provision for over-the-air software updates – a capability that Tesla appears prepared to liberally leverage to its advantage.  In fact, the 17” display facilitates the process by detailing the latest software updates to the driver as they occur – usually overnight with the customer’s approval.  (Since first introducing the capability, Tesla has shifted to conducting initial download tests on the marketing fleet before deploying to consumers.)

The embedded modem also allows Tesla to monitor vehicle performance at all times, as was reflected in the recently disputed NYTimes review of Tesla's new East Coast fast-charging network intended to enable a gas-free, electrified journey from Washington, DC to Boston.  Setting aside the details, CEO Elon Musk's use of vehicle data to question the claims of the reviewer regarding his speed and use of HVAC was a revelation to some.  But, as a company representative clarified later to me, Tesla does NOT gather location information, only performance data.  And the customer opt in is purely binary - yes or no - and, with no location data, clearly does not encompass probe data for enhancing traffic information.

There are shortcomings to the Model S infotainment system which are readily apparent from a short drive.  The user interface – tends to default to a vehicle information screen.  Often featured prominently is a Google map which, while driving, may pixilate or disappear entirely based on the quality of the wireless connection.  This is a bit surprising given the fact that Audi has been out for two years already with AudiConnect consistently displaying Google Earth imagery over the Nokia Navteq map thanks to 2GB of cache memory.  Of course, Audi and Tesla currently share a lack of automatic crash notification capability.  (Tesla execs say they have yet to figure out a solution for replacing Google maps for the launch in China.)

What is missing in the homegrown head unit of the Model S, which is based on Linux, is a personalized experience that anticipates the driver’s needs and preferences and/or anticipates driving information needs such as traffic or weather data.  While multiple content aggregators have demonstrated interfaces fusing multiple inputs into a user interface capable of actively anticipating the contextual information needs and wants of the driver, Tesla appears to have put its entire emphasis on vehicle information management and map illustration.

Yet, even in its presentation of map information the Model S lacks 3D graphics or even Audi’s Google Earth.  Also missing is a more advanced safety portfolio leveraging sensors and cameras.  Company representatives say a more advanced safety offering is in the works and the center console display is ideally suited and prepared for such an integration.

But these “complaints” are quibbles, especially in the context of a car that can be transformed overnight by software updates.  The Model S I drove in last week may actually be different, by now, from the Model S I drive tomorrow.

But the real impact of Tesla lies in its distribution and service strategy.  Tesla is selling its cars from more than 22 stores nationwide and has won its first battle with traditional automobile dealers as a Massachusetts court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association (MSADA).  The lawsuit claimed that Tesla was in violation of Massachusetts law governing the sales and servicing of cars.

The National Automobile Dealer Association has indicated its intent to support the MSADA’s efforts to challenge Tesla’s sales model setting up an ongoing clash between the massively influential and politically connected NADA and Tesla, which is backed by a combination of deep pockets, green technology cachet and its own political connections.

At a time when antipathy between North American automobile dealers and OEMs is at a peak around the question of facilities standardization and modernization strategies, Tesla presents a disruptive approach to vehicle sales that aligns well with the growing retailing mantra of the Apple Store.  In fact, as part of the NADA’s Phase II report on factory image programs focused on showroom modernization and standardization, the association’s consultant noted Apple’s stores as a touchstone for future store design.  (Tesla hired Apple's former VP of real estate, George Blankenship more than two years with precisely this objective in mind.)

It is no secret that car makers have been trying to steal a few pages from Apple’s playbook with “genius bars” popping up in Hyundai showrooms and with Ford, BMW and GM all adding more in-store personnel/sales counselors to explain new vehicle systems.  But if Tesla is successful in defending its right to sell cars from company-owned stores, a no holds barred struggle could emerge between OEMs and independent dealers in North America.

Further challenging the traditional model is the fact that Tesla showrooms are divorced from the vehicle servicing function.  Vehicles are serviced by independent agents dispatched directly to visit customers.  Tesla has indicated plans, at least in Massachusetts, to open a service location separate from its store, but even this concession is viewed by MSADA as either a violation or a compromise of the law governing vehicle franchises which must have service on-site.  (Tesla is showing its cars in a mall in Natick, Mass.)

So, Tesla is disrupting the automotive market in a number of ways such as:

Including the cost of the embedded wireless service in the cost of the vehicle – though reserving the right to charge for this at some point in the future

Delivering Internet radio and streaming audio via the embedded modem

Delivering seemingly unlimited and endless software updates over the embedded modem

Developing vehicle systems almost entirely “in-house” with only limited support from traditional industry suppliers

Servicing the cars using independent agents

But, most importantly, selling the cars via company owned stores and with little or no service component - since there is almost nothing to service.

With all of the attention paid to Google’s self-driving cars in the past year, one might have concluded that Google was the most disruptive force in the industry.  In fact, it is Tesla that is rocking Motown, Munich, Tokyo et. al. with its fresh-baked, homegrown approach to automotive marketing.

In comparison to Tesla, Google is a virtual lapdog doing everything it can to play nice with car makers offering up Google Maps, POIs, Google Earth, Google Search and even Android as tools for vehicle development.  Even the Google car is seen as nothing more than a marketing platform for Google technology intended for sale to the industry.

Tesla is taking no prisoners and tipping its hat to no conventions as it continues to hit or surpass its own financial and production targets.  The company is selling cars with 25% margins in a market where new internal combustion engine driven cars are sold with single digit margins and dealers hope to make up the revenue on service.  And, like Google, Tesla is sharing its powertrain development with Toyota (RAV4 EV) and Daimler - which provided Tesla with a steering wheel for the Model S.

What should OEMs do?

It is not too late for car makers to update their dealer franchise strategies and business models.  Among the steps that ought to be considered is giving dealers greater flexibility around the manner in which facilities upgrades are funded and approved.  Car makers should recognize the important customer interface role played by dealers and work to lower their costs of doing business (ie. reduce the expenses associated with diagnostic hardware and software) and give dealers access to vehicle data derived from telematics systems.

Independent dealers need to be viewed by car makers as important allies in connecting with consumers.  It is time to put aside the adversarial relationship that is undermining the customer interaction – a relationship that is essential to improving customer satisfaction scores and retention.

It is inevitable that OEMs – particularly in the luxury segment - will seek to open showrooms to match Tesla’s high profile market presence.  But these measures should go hand in hand with supporting the existing independent dealer network.  Whether or how the OEMs choose to walk this tightrope remains to be seen.  In the meantime, Tesla will be opening soon in a mall near you

*A final note on the Model S infotainment system: The car comes with access to Slacker and TuneIn Radio via the embedded modem, an industry first.  Additional apps will require Tesla approval before being implemented.  The system also allows for Web browsing.  More importantly, the nature of the configuration suggests an upgrade path focused on software rather than hardware, since the 17" display consumes so much of the space normally reserved for a more traditional center stack.  Not all drivers will be pleased with the 17" display, which tends to wash out in bright sunlight, but it is fairly stunning at night.  The navigation feedback in the display is supplemented with instrument cluster guidance.  Some customers will be tempted to rip out the standard 17" display and start from scratch - but most will be too jazzed by the car's performance to much care about that kind of radical automotive surgery.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its 2013 “Most Wanted List” of solutions for transportation hazards including everything from enhanced pipeline safety to improved safety for airport surface operations. Near the bottom of the list were three items relevant to the automotive industry: reducing distracted driving in all environments, reducing impaired driving and mandating collision avoidance technologies.

The announcement from the NTSB is reminiscent of what Abraham Maslow said in 1966: “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” I believe this statement accurately characterizes the NTSB’s position - replace "hammer" with "mandate" - but it only hints at the potential negative consequences from mandating safety technologies.

The concerns of the NTSB are significant and worthy of note.  While annual highway fatalities have been in a steady decline for the past decade, the U.S. still sees approximately 100 fatalities per day on its roads.  This is clearly not acceptable.  According to NTSB estimates 10,000 lives are lost annually to impaired drivers – the single greatest source of death and injury on the road. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed a much quoted figure of 3,000 annual fatalities from distracted driving most often ascribed to the use of smartphones.  NHTSA representatives have stated publicly they are seeking better metrics for this phenomenon, but executives at the NTSB have already voiced their preference for a ban on mobile phones in cars – something which is opposed by the automotive industry and the Consumer Electronics Association among other interested parties.

The NTSB further estimates that run-off-road, rear-end, and lane change maneuvers account for 23%, 28%, and 9% of highway accidents, respectively. The agency says collision avoidance technologies can prevent these types of accidents - or 60% of the total.

NTSB cites data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for its claims that mandating collision avoidance technologies will prevent crashes and save lives.  NTSB says the IIHS “estimates that forward collision warning can prevent 879 fatal crashes annually for passenger vehicles and 115 fatal crashes annually for large trucks. The (IIHS) estimates that lane departure warning can prevent 247 fatal crashes annually, and electronic stability control, 439 fatal crashes annually.

There are a host of issues raised by this call for a mandate and I have an alternative proposal.  First, the problems.

1)      The NTSB’s call to mandate collision avoidance technologies has immediately put automotive industry lobbyists on the defensive, although some have actually already gone into attack mode.  Unfortunately, the predictable path of resistance lies in decrying the high cost of fulfilling technology mandates, which will translate as more expensive vehicles.  The agency has responded that the industry cost estimates are too high and they will decline over time anyway.  The real problem here is that it puts the automotive industry in the awkward position of arguing indirectly or directly over the value of saved lives.  This is unproductive and corrosive to the regulatory process while introducing an undue level of emotion and exposing, inaccurately,  the auto industry as possessed of a callous disregard for human life.

2)      The IIHS as a source of statistical validation is hardly a disinterested party, funded as it is by the insurance industry.  In spite of the IIHS findings regarding the efficacy of certain safety systems, consumers have seen little reward from their insurers in the form of lower insurance rates for cars equipped with these systems.  And the IIHS was not nearly as sanguine as the NTSB regarding lane departure warning, which the IIHS said, earlier this year, can harm rather help avoid accidents, in the organizaton’s own words.

3)      The mandate process itself will require years of testing to determine the efficacy of these systems for preventing crashes and fatalities.  Even if the NTSB and the industry could agree that something should be done, each technology will require extensive testing and review virtually halting existing development in the industry - which is currently moving at a rapid pace - for fear of selecting the “wrong” solution.

4)      NHTSA has already set out a target of crash avoidance and is rewarding car makers with higher safety ratings.

 

Here are my modest proposals for resolving this scenario.  My ideas are market driven although they will benefit from

endorsement or implementation within the existing regulatory framework.

1)      Require insurers to offer discounts for vehicles equipped with the very safety systems for which the agency is seeking “robust” industry adoption.  It’s almost impossible – if not actually impossible – to find an insurer willing to offer a discount on a Volvo equipped with City Safety collision avoidance.  If this is a life-saving technology, it is time for the insurance industry to put its money on what its data has validated and it may also be time for the NTSB or some other regulator to compel such action.

2)      We are currently at the outset of the World Health Organization’s Decade of Action for Road Safety.  There couldn’t possibly be a better time for the NTSB, perhaps in concert with NHTSA, to set forth a set of targets along the lines of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.  The automotive industry howled when the 54.5 mpg standard was first proposed, but has now agreed to go along.  Could the U.S. put together individual car maker targets for lives saved/deaths prevented?  Could the NTSB and or NHTSA build a database intended to identify best practices in vehicle safety system design?  Could auto makers be forced to take more responsibility for the actions and behaviors of their drivers?

3)      How about tax credits for new cars equipped with specific qualifying safety systems?

4)      It is worth noting that car makers are already bringing a wider portfolio of safety systems to more and more of their cars at lower price ranges.  Market conditions suggest that mandates at this time are almost completely unnecessary and, if anything, will only slow adoption and deployment.

There are a lot of ways to save lives and there are a lot of lives to be saved.  Mandates aren’t the only path to less motor vehicle bloodshed.  The government and insurers should recognize and reward those car makers that have made the greatest progress in ending highway mayhem.  And drivers, too, should be rewarded for choosing safety.

Embedded telematics systems like OnStar ought to act as the car maker’s wingman, which is defined by Wikipedia as “a pilot who supports another in a potentially dangerous flying environment.” The wingman is most familiar from formations of jet pilots where a second, support flyer flies his plane beside and slightly behind a lead flyer to “watch his back.”

Telematics technology has the ability to fulfill that function, but it isn’t happening yet.

The GM Authority newsletter reports today that General Motors has issued a recall for more than 4,000 2012 Chevy Sonics that have rolled out of the company’s Orion Township assembly plant missing either an inner or outer front brake pad.  The newsletter reports that new Sonic owners can expect a letter in the mail beginning January 14, 2012, which will instruct them to take their Sonic to the nearest Chevy dealer for inspection for missing components.

How GM can have this happen when its cars come equipped with Bluetooth and embedded modems is beyond comprehension.  With the existing on-board technology, GM ought to be able to enable vehicle diagnostics capabilities during, or at least at the conclusion of, the production process to ensure the existence and proper functioning of all on-board systems.

GM probably does not want to provision the on-board modem at the factory and Bluetooth may not be considered sufficiently secure for extracting sensitive and vulnerable vehicle data.  But the value of this information and the service it provides to customers, dealers and management is great enough to justify the added cost of provisioning the modem during production and/or hooking up the Bluetooth to the CAN bus.

The unfortunate truth is that architecturally speaking embedded telematics systems have for the most part been segregated from Bluetooth connectivity systems.  In fact, at GM, the teams responsible for these two connectivity propositions are working in parallel and not entirely in cooperation.

This is why this analyst made a plea earlier this year for a “C-level” executive at every auto maker to act as Chief Connectivity Officer.  (http://bit.ly/fXV0r1 - Vehicle Connectivity as a C-Level Responsibility – Insight – 3-2011)  The responsibilities of this executive will include embedding connectivity into all systems of the car and all aspects of the organization.

From production, to dealer delivery, to sale, telematics systems ought to be part of the entire car making, selling and owning experience.  This philosophical approach means the telematics system is live as early in the vehicle production process as possible (with GM in the forefront having made OnStar standard on most models).  Plant managers receive OnStar reports throughout the day regarding the status of on-board systems for cars rolling off the line – and managers and developers see the same reports.

The trucks delivering the cars have a wirelessly updated manifest of all the cars they are delivering.  The dealer uses the telematics system as part of his inventory management system and, after the sales of the vehicle, as part of his customer relationship management system.

In the connected world just described, no GM customer is waiting two weeks for a letter to let him or her know there is a missing brake pad on their car.  The plant manager knows or, if he misses it, the truck driver knows or, if he misses it, the dealer knows right away something is wrong with the car.

In contrast, Ford won an award earlier in 2011 (http://bit.ly/rZEWhd) for its use of Wi-Fi on the production line to provision Sync and MyFord Touch system software and configurations.  This shows yet another innovative way that wireless technology can be used on the production line to save or avoid costs.  (No word on whether Ford is enabling the kind of wireless diagnostics I have described, but they can and should.)

This production line software provisioning, too, ought to be interesting to GM not only because the company has been flirting with adding Wi-Fi to more of its cars, but also because it is struggling with the timing of the launch of its MyLink (Chevrolet) and Intellilink (Buick) smartphone connectivity systems.  Wireless provisioning of these systems might enable GM to bring these solutions to market more swiftly and competitively.

Implications

The Chevy Sonic brake pad slip-up ought to have represented an opportunity for GM to show the power of OnStar’s diagnostics capabilities.  The existing OnStar diagnostic report may not detect the presence of a brake pad, although it does report on the status of the anti-lock brake and stability control systems among others. 

The typical OnStar subscriber will certainly want to know how much pad they have left on their brakes. OnStar ought to be adding detection of the brake pads and their status to the existing report.

The good news is that in a world where OnStar is no longer the only telematics player in town, the pressure is on like never before to innovate and leverage the existing (and future) telematics investment to ensure the organization is extracting all possible revenue opportunities and cost avoidance potential out of that embedded modem. 

Telematics ought to be acting as every car maker's wingman, watching for trouble and leaping into action at the first sign.  The potential remains to be tapped and there are riches to be had by those who choose to tap it.

 

Cross Country Automotive Services (CCAS) and AAA have almost simultaneously launched mobile EV charging programs in the U.S. CCAS described its program as “the nation’s first mobile charging warranty roadside assistance program." AAA announced in July its first roadside assistance truck with the capability to charge electric vehicles.  These programs are the precursors of ubiquitous mobile EV charging services, removing range anxiety from the psychological barriers to EV acceptance, but leaving sticker shock yet to be overcome.

Both programs are offered in a limited number of cities and are clearly targeting the earliest of adopters – ie. purchasers of Nissan’s Leaf EV – while anticipating the arrival of more Leaf-like vehicles.  The AAA program appears more forward looking than the CCAS program in that it offers two charging level options along with all of the usual roadside assistance services (tire replacement, battery charging, etc.) and, if all else fails, it can tow the customer’s vehicle.

CCAS says its mobile chargers may be mounted on small trailers and consist of 10 kWh propane-powered generators that charge the disabled electric vehicles. One of the AAA vehicles shown earlier this year features a removable lithium-ion battery pack for mobile charging.

AAA describes its program as a pilot via which the organization will evaluate the appropriateness of different technologies for use in different geographies around the U.S.  Other vehicles will be equipped with generators powered by alternative fuels and other power sources.

Both the CCAS and AAA programs offer emergency charging assistance – five or more miles of range for as little as 15 minutes of charge - to drivers whose EV batteries have been depleted.  Available to both service providers and dealerships, the CCAS chargers offer the capability to quickly and safely charge multiple vehicles concurrently through a Level 2 charging protocol, delivering consistent utility grade power. In addition, the charger is capable of back-to-back services without the need to recharge any onboard batteries.

AAA says its mobile EV charging roadside assistance vehicles can provide Level 3 (DC fast charging) and Level 2 (AC quick charging) to electric vehicles.

The seven initial markets for the CCAS program are: Los Angeles; Phoenix; Nashville (Tenn.); Portland; San Diego; San Francisco and Seattle. The company says the first mobile charge within the program was successfully completed on August 26 in Phoenix, taking only 15 minutes to provide driver with an additional 5 miles. Cross Country will be adding additional mobile charging units to other areas throughout its national service provider network across the country.

AAA announced it initially will deploy its trucks with mobile electric vehicle charging capability in six metropolitan areas across the U.S. as a pilot program, including Portland, Seattle, the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles, Knoxville (Tenn.) and the Tampa Bay area. The phased rollout will begin later this summer and continue into the fall. Let the charging begin.

Additional insight:

http://bit.ly/qlP7i1 - When is 54.5 mpg not 54.5 mpg? US CAFE Targets May Disillusion US Car Buyers - Insight - Ian Riches - Automotive Electronics Service 

Last week’s Los Angeles Auto Show highlighted the rising influence of Apple’s iPad and the contention for in-vehicle display space. While Apple’s iPod sounded the death knell of the automotive CD drive and the iPhone introduced the concept of the unlimited data plan and Internet radio to the car, the iPad is spreading the gospel of the tablet PC as thin client suitable to automotive head unit configuration, rearseat entertainment platform or all-purpose remote control. In a normally slow-moving industry the iPad’s influence has been immediate and unavoidable.

At the auto show in Los Angeles, Audi announced its iPad application......Please register or log-in to read the complete report

http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=navigationheader&a0=218

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

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

Porsche is changing horses in the stolen vehicle recovery department, opting for Autotxt’s stolen vehicle recovery solution for the 911, Boxter and Cayman, according to industry sources. The change may be coming as a result of Autotxt’s new architecture which enables a single electronic control unit (ECU) to provide a wide range of vehicle diagnostic and remote control capabilities in addition to vehicle tracking. An official announcement is expected later this week. This single ECU solution from Autotxt has the potential to transform the relationship between the driver, the smartphone and the car, providing an enhanced opportunity to sell stolen vehicle recovery systems in the context of a low-cost smartphone-based telematics application. The technology has implications for customer and dealer relationships as well as for broader branding and marketing purposes. It also creates a new path for app distribution to drivers. Finally, the announcement shows Porsche taking one step closer to the inevitable introduction of telematics. Porsche has had a telematics system in place, ready to launch, for many years. The choice of Autotxt move the company that much closer to that decision while providing an in-place solution to satisfy the European eCall mandate. The Autotxt solution for Porsche - which will supplant the existing offering from Cobra Automotive - provides for both reactive and proactive stolen vehicle notification and recovery. In the reactive mode, the vehicle owner must notify the service provider, Autotxt, when the vehicle has been stolen. In the pro-active, or early-warning, application, the service provider is notified of any unauthorized vehicle movement at which point the driver is contacted. The Porsche application – which is a dealer install - may also offer the same functionality provided by Autotxt for Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin. Those implementations use the driver’s Bluetooth-enabled phone as the driver identification tag. Alternatively a keyfob can be provided. The system allows for up to seven Bluetooth driver IDs. Porsche is still evaluating this provision. The Autotxt offering is unique in the flexibility of its ECU. Like other modules coming into automobiles for related tracking, tolling and telematics applications, the Autotxt device is deeply embedded in the vehicle with access to the controller area network (CAN) codes. Autotxt expects to make available by Q2 2011 a smartphone application for remote vehicle control and diagnostics. Autotxt executives expect to be able to provide remote control functionality including remote activation of heating and air conditioning, windows, door locks and remote starting along with data logging and vehicle diagnostics. The multifunction ECU, therefore, can become an event data recorder as well as an eCall or bCall platform while also gathering and distributing data on overall vehicle operation available to either the driver or the dealer or both. The device could also handle trip reporting, battery status for electric vehicles and a wide range of location-aware applications. In this way, the car maker retains control of the in-vehicle connectivity experience in contrast to the widely reported terminal mode approach of conveying the smartphone HMI into the car. Autotxt expects to have versions of its system available for Android and other platforms by the middle of next year. The Porsche deal is global in scope as are the implications of the ongoing Autotxt development activities.

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

Presenters at Freescale’s Technology Forum sought to clear the air on some fundamental automotive development questions. Chief among the topics debated at the event were operating system trends generally and Android specifically, and the emergence of automotive application stores. Representatives from OnStar, Kia, Hyundai, and Visteon as well as system integrators such as IAEC all agreed that apps are coming to cars. It does not appear to matter whether they are built-in, brought in or beamed in. They are coming. To cope, auto makers will confront the challenge with a few key priorities in mind: Safety Liability In-vehicle HMI Branding Security OEMs say they need to ensure that the vehicle can be operated safely; that liability issues are pre-empted; that key elements of in-vehicle HMI are properly integrated; that branding messages are preserved and not superseded; and that the security of the on-board systems and the customer’s information are maintained. For these reasons, OEMs will be seeking assistance to establish validation processes and criteria for apps coming into the vehicle. Liability stood out among these issues as a point of disagreement. While OEM representatives say car makers will be blamed for any app failure, and dealers will be forced to cope with these complaints, non-auto industry executives thought consumers would simply blame the app maker, telecom carrier or handsets supplier. Unfortunately, car makers cannot afford to gamble that they won’t be blamed for failures. Because of the magnitude of this task, OEMs are already adding staff for software development while partnering with third party developers to create their own approved, branded solutions. While some applications are being developed in house, most development activity is taking place within the software developer community to OEM specifications. The long-term implications of these developments are monumental when the need for software updates is taken into account. It also means that OEMs are in many instances taking on the role of being their own tier ones – a function first defined by Ford with the launch of Sync. Ford has pioneered and, some say, mastered the strategy of acting as general contractor for its Ford Sync system with its growing community of software developers and service providers. Companies such as Kia Motors, Hyundai Motor America and Toyota Motor Sales all have followed suit with varying degrees of success. OnStar has made no secret of the fact that it is hiring technicians and expanding its supplier eco-system as it modifies its hardware and software model to make room for the app phenomenon. Hardware tier ones such as Delphi, Continental, Visteon and Johnson Controls are attempting to step into the general contractor role as well, offering to play the role of application certifiers. The acceptance of these appeals remains to be seen. Visteon and QNX demonstrated application store and content aggregation platforms at the Freescale Technology Forum. Visteon’s solution was built on Canonical’s Ubuntu Linux distribution. QNX’s offering was based on its own OS, although QNX is able to implement ann Android-based solution, if required, via its abstraction layer. Other automotive software suppliers on hand at the event included Canonical, Mentor Graphics, Wind River, Green Hills and Microsoft. Given the rapid growth in developer support for Android and its proliferation in the mobile market, it is logical that there be a connection to the app store debate. Suppliers to the automotive industry continue to debate the question of Android in the car. But several presenters at the Freescale Technology Forum suggested the question was moot, not only because Android was simply another version of Linux, which is already widely distributed in the car, but because the automotive platform is already being implemented. Lingering objections to Android appear to boil down to two issues, according to a Freescale executive at the Technology Forum: boot time and versions. Android can take as long as 40 seconds to boot, as anyone who owns an Android phone can attest. Android supporters say the millisecond boot times required by automotive specifications can be achieved with hardware and software workarounds. With regard to the multiplying versions of Android, it is true that the platform is still at least partially in the hands of Google and new versions arrive on a regular basis. Additionally, the priorities for the propagation of new versions are governed by the exigencies of the mobile, not the automotive, marketplace. Android supporters say it is hard to imagine that any operating system platform will not be subject to change and updating, hence this objection does not appear to hold water. Freescale has waded into the debate with developer support for Android applications for mobile devices. Freescale has an i.MX51 evaluation kit with Android OS board support package (BSP). Freescale says its BSP is ready to be adapted to select i.MX platforms. “The i.MX51 multimedia applications processor running Android is an excellent platform for building a high-performance, low-power and cost-effective mobile device that successfully passes the Android Compatibility Test Suite (CTS).” According to an executive from Intrepid Control Systems (ICS), which has created an Android application - Sensor Spy - for extracting sensor data from a vehicle for triggering mobile device functions, Google retains control over access to a few aspects of Android including the Android Market, access to specific Google APIs, and access to cloud features such as voice recognition and push technology. But the ICS executive pointed out that Android can be used for its APIs and tools and that a home screen can be used to hide Android from the end user (via Mentor Embedded Inflexion UI). The ICS executive proceeded to describe how the Android model works concluding that Google TV may be an ideal automotive application. In conclusion, he pointed to the Android-based SAIC InkaNet optional connectivity platform introduced for the Chinese market earlier this year as the first automotive Android implementation. Indications in the industry are that it is only the first of many to come. Conclusion: App stores are a reality in the automotive marketplace. But automotive app stores will differ from the Apple App Store or Android Market. Automotive applications will have to be properly vetted for liability, security, HMI, safety and branding. For this reason, it is unlikely that car makers will be able to implement off-the-shelf application solutions. Car makers will be forced to create new supplier relationships and a new eco-system to support the app store model. They will be forced to do this in the context of an ill-defined path to revenue generation (from selling apps? from selling app-related enhancements or content?) in the hope that app stores will stimulate vehicle sales or as a customer-driven defensive response to the proliferation of smart phones and smart phone connectivity platforms in the automotive industry. The message from the Freescale Technology Forum: Like it or not, automotive app stores and the Android OS have arrived. Additional insights: http://bit.ly/cYvFZH - InkaNet – Mobile-Based Infotainment Comes To Chinese Autos - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service - Kevin Mak http://bit.ly/aBwXvE - Enabling Technologies Forecasts A to E - Wireless Device Strategies - Bonny Joy http://bit.ly/bUxwrT - Automotive Semiconductor Demand Forecast 2008 - 2017: Datafile - Automotive Electronics Service - Chris Webber http://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as 'Apps' Competition Mounts - Automotive Multimedia and Communications  Service - Joanne Blight Intrepid Control Systems - Android OS for Infotainment: Advantages of an Open Architecture - http://bit.ly/cTfBFG