Automotive

• 23Aug

  Traffic Data Quality Will Determine Telematics Winners

  Business Models, Connectivity, HMI, LBS, Legislation, Mobile phone, Navigation, Sensors, Software, Telematics, Traffic, Vehicle OEMs, Vendors No Comments

  The gold standard for telematics success is daily relevance. One of the greatest challenges for companies introducing telematics systems and solutions is to bring daily relevance to their offerings. Human beings are creatures of habit, which means that driving directions are normally not required daily, gas pricing and parking choices are predetermined, and weather and news are available for free over the radio.

  Movie times, skiing conditions and restaurant reviews are nice to haves. But they are available from other sources – most notably mobile phones – and are an occasional not a daily information requirement. And we all hope we never have to use either automatic crash notification or roadside assistance.

  Traffic data, on the other hand, is something that is relevant five days a week to a substantial portion of the working public. Companies that get traffic data right have a huge competitive advantage not only in providing traffic data, but also for providing a wide range of data feeds and services. In fact, the very infrastructure required for delivering traffic data – storage and processing facilities and servers and, in some cases, broadcasting capability - is a suitable platform for providing other telematics services.

  For this reason, traffic data providers Inrix, ITIS Holdings, TomTom and Navteq also serve as content and service aggregators. (It is also one of the reasons for TeleCommunications Systems’ acquisition of Networks in Motion and why TeleNav has a content and services platform.) The opportunity to provide additional telematics services is the brass ring for which traffic data providers are reaching. It is for this reason these companies are seeking to bundle traffic data offerings with traffic-influenced routing, developing mobile apps for smartphones and connected navigation systems, and other initiatives focused on moving up the value chain – ultimately leading to sponsored content, reviews and location-aware advertising and promotion.

  The daily relevance of traffic data is a powerful elixir for delivering additional location-aware added-value services, including advertising. This is why Google, TeleNav, TCS, Nokia Navteq, RIM and TomTom are moving quickly to introduce or enhance their probe-based (handset GPS) traffic flow solutions to develop their telematics business.

  The winner(s) to emerge from this marketing scrum will be the company or companies with the highest quality traffic data. Traffic data quality, in turn, is determined by a handful of critical factors including data sources, integration, and delivery. (The quality and nature of the user interface is important as well, but is the responsibility of the device or service designer/manufacturer.)

  The determining factors within each of these areas are essential to understand:

  Sources: There are a handful of key sources of traffic data and they include commercial fleet (ie. taxi cabs, trucks, etc. and other types of probes such as GPS handsets, PNDs, etc.), regional departments of transport, embedded and roadside sensors, and incident or journalistic data. A handful of companies – principally TomTom, ITIS Holdings and AirSage - are translating cell tower signaling data for flow data analysis. This technology is currently deployed by both TomTom and ITIS in parts of
  Europe. ITIS licenses its technology to partners in Australia, Ireland, Russia, South Africa and
  Singapore. A North American solution has yet to be delivered. TomTom delivers its cellular flow data in HD Traffic for its connected devices in Europe, which still stands as one of the best, if not THE best, live traffic solution in the world. (It is worth noting that HD Traffic received low scores in BMW’s QKZ evaluation.)
  

  Traffic flow data from these sources is valuable for many use cases and applications including showing traffic on a map and traffic-influenced routing. Journalistic data complements the flow data by providing context about the cause, location and scope of the traffic problem. This is particularly useful to receive as a traffic incident alert before leaving on a journey or to provide context when actually stuck in a traffic jam, as the driver generally can’t safely read a description about an incident while driving.Incident data come from public sources such as emergency responders, department of transportation traffic cameras, or public or private spotters that may be on the ground or observing traffic conditions from some form of aircraft. Much of incident data is public information – some of it freely available to the public - and most is freely available to commercial traffic information providers. There are some private sources, however, including radio and TV stations with their own spotters, cameras or sensors and these include companies such as ITIS Holdings, SmartRoute, Traffic.com and ClearChannel.

  ClearChannel and ITIS Holdings have emerged as the dominant suppliers of incident data in the U.S. and
  U.K., respectively. The two companies have the widest market coverage and the broadest roster of clients. Of course, operating a traffic incident collection and reporter network on a national basis (much less internationally) can be extremely expensive and unprofitable, and companies such as Westwood One and Traffic.com operate under the pressure of that expense.

  Not surprisingly, ClearChannel and ITIS are also distinguished in applying the so-called QKZ traffic quality assessment standards to their solutions. QKZ, which is the name of the index used to evaluate traffic data, is the standard applied by BMW in evaluating different traffic solutions. BMW recently selected MILE Traffic and Travel (ITIS, Infoblu, Mediamobil consortium) to provide a pan-European traffic solution. BMW is already partnered with ClearChannel in the
  U.S. for their RDS-TMC solution.

  It is important to note those elements of the traffic data picture that are global in nature vs. local and to make a distinction between flow data and incident data. There are thousands of local sources of incident data and there are local aggregators of that data, but incident data is fundamentally a regional phenomenon. Flow data, in contrast, is ruled by systems that can be applied globally.

  There are five providers of flow data currently operating across borders and these are ITIS, Inrix, Nokia Navteq, TomTom and TrafficCast. ITIS is unique in using a licensing model. TomTom has yet to find a customer in the automotive or mobile device market for its flow data. TrafficCast has a handful of customers. And Inrix and Navteq currently compete for contracts in North America and
  Europe. Car makers are most interested in identifying global solutions, while navigation device makers and mobile application developers are content with regional solutions. 

  Companies such as Waze, Aha Mobile and TrafficTalk are attempting to open up a new channel of user-reported incident data. But the industry is still seeking to determine how to evaluate the quality of these ad hoc sources and integrate their inputs.

  Integration: The process of data integration produces a picture of traffic flow including not only real-time traffic flow or speeds but also a predictive model based on both historical and real-time data sources. This information is critical for determining accurate travel and arrival times as well as routing or re-routing.The five leading flow data companies distinguish themselves by their processes for integrating and manipulating traffic data, vetting sources and interpreting the different inputs. A virtual duopoly exists between Inrix and Navteq in the
  U.S. The European market is rapidly evolving from regional traffic providers to pan-European aggregators. TomTom has developed its proprietary HD traffic in a handful of countries, but is only deployed with its own smartphone and connected PND solutions. Navteq has a solution in place with Garmin, but has limited European coverage. Inrix and MILE Traffic and Travel appear to be emerging as powerful challengers in
  Europe.

  Delivery: The last link in the chain is delivery and this is the area experiencing the greatest degree of technological change. The most widespread platform for communicating traffic information is radio, but there are multiple radio-based platforms for traffic information delivery. Analog radio is the most dominant and familiar source of traffic data reports and the most widely available traffic data broadcast network in this medium is RDS-TMC. RDS-TMC is widely criticized for the limited amount of information it is capable of broadcasting in a metropolitan area and perceived delays (latency) in delivering the latest information to the embedded or portable navigation system in the car.

  Emerging digital radio technology enables a richer stream of traffic-related content and maintains the critical local elements. Digital radio is also a superior platform for delivering other forms of content. RDS-TMC is being replaced by TPEG technology. TPEG allows for a wider range of content, a larger volume of information and can be distributed over HD, DAB or cellular networks as it is XML-based. TPEG also encompasses arterial road coverage.

  Handset-based solutions are promising, though hampered by the smaller screens and challenging in-vehicle user experience associated with mobile phones. While technologies such as Nokia’s Terminal Mode offer the prospect of delivering handset traffic images to in-vehicle displays these solutions will take a few years to reach the market. Many OEMs, however, are in product development now with solutions that use handsets (or are fully integrating embedded GSM/GPRS modules in the vehicle) for sending traffic data and other telematics information to/from the vehicle. Product development is moving briskly in the handset/smartphone space and innovative solutions such as TrafficTalk and Visteon’s TrafficCamJam are in the offing.

  But the companies creating these applications will likely require expensive voice interfaces. Public authorities will likely not accept handset-based applications in cars that require a touch screen interface while the vehicle is in motion.

  Part of the power of these smartphone-based applications, though, lies in the fact that they are location-aware and sharing location data even as they are reporting traffic conditions. As a result, these devices remain a wildcard in the evolution of traffic data.

  Sirius XM’s traffic data service in North America, based as it is on a single national stream of broadcast data to a vehicle’s navigation system, is fatally flawed. Based on this correspondent’s own experience with the Sirius feed in Mercedes and the ClearChannel feed in BMW, the lag introduced by the sequential transmission of multiple-market’s worth of traffic information down a single pipeline is the source of Sirius’ downfall.

  It is no coincidence that BMW offers Sirius’ audio content but eschews its traffic offering. And some industry observers believe OEMs are dropping Sirius/XM traffic data services from their roadmaps for MY13 and beyond in favor of connected services over GPRS/GSM. In Sirius XM’s most recent earnings call two weeks ago the company touted its planned introduction in Q4 2011 of Satellite Radio 2.0. Presumably the company will have a fix for the timely delivery of traffic data.

  Conclusion:

  The biggest pipeline to the car of all is the embedded telecommunications module. With new embedded solutions set to launch from multiple car makers in multiple geographies over the next 2-3 years, drivers can expect to see vast improvements in traffic information quality. This is at least one reason for optimism regarding the future uptake of telematics services overall.

  With the emergence of both digital radio technologies worldwide and the proliferation of embedded telematics systems, the expectation is that the companies that will dominate traffic will be those with the highest quality data. What distinguishes these companies today are their processes for validating data quality. If the data is sound the daily relevance will follow as will subscribers.

  Further insight:

  http://tinyurl.com/2bz9zq6 - Google, Nokia and New Entrant Positioning in Automotive Infotainment - Lanctot – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/dniNxa - Navigation Heuristic Evaluation: Telmap5 – Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insightshttp://bit.ly/95NCoW - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority – Blight – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/dtRE5C - Automotive Telematics Services: Shifts in Pricing and Monetization Expected – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/bwdwcW - Connected Vehicle and Vehicle Device Connectivity System Database by Feature, Region, and Price 2010 – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles – Canali – Aumotive Multimedia and Communications Service

  Posted by rlanctot @ 1:17 pm

• 15Aug

  Zero Fatalities Goal Puts Pressure on Safety Systems

  Advanced Safety, Connectivity, Consumer Insights, HMI, LBS, Legislation, Mobile phone, Navigation, Semiconductors, Sensors, Software, Telematics, Vehicle OEMs, microcontrollers No Comments

  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

  Posted by rlanctot @ 4:44 pm

• 03Aug

  Genivi Report Clouds Rather Than Clarifies Auto OS Debate

  Audio/Video, Business Models, Connectivity, HMI, Mobile phone, Navigation, Semiconductors, Sensors, Software, Telematics, Traffic, Vehicle OEMs, Vendors, microcontrollers No Comments

  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

  Posted by rlanctot @ 5:54 am

• 27Jul

  Smartphones Bringing Safety Systems to Cars

  Advanced Safety, Business Models, Connectivity, HMI, LBS, Legislation, Mobile phone, Navigation, Sensors, Software, Telematics, Vehicle OEMs No Comments

  Attendees at Ford’s recent launch of the 2011 Explorer at the Newseum in Washington, DC asked company executives if they were worried about the potentially distracting aspects of the MyFord Touch voice-based interface available on the new SUV. The answer from Ford was that MyFord Touch specifically enables hands-free use of vehicle systems allowing the driver to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.

  This is the message that not all industry participants are grasping. The smartphone is rapidly becoming a platform for delivering safety systems into vehicles and yet leading governmental and non-governmental bodies continue to declare their opposition to the use of mobile devices in cars. The National Safety Council, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) and the American Automobile Association have all declared their opposition to mobile phone use in cars.

  Public authorities should speed, not impede, the path of technological progress. If smartphones can deliver safety to drivers faster than embedded systems or DSRC-based systems requiring billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, so be it. And new applications from companies such as ImaginYze and Global Mobile Alert, among many others, are making advanced safety technology available via smartphone apps.

  Fortunately, none of this opposition to mobile phone use in cars has produced national or even local legislation banning mobile phone use altogether. Most laws only go so far as to either ban texting and driving or to require hands-free devices. In some states, teen drivers are forbidden to use mobile phones while driving. Nevertheless, the campaigns continue, including Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone.

  
  Germany probably has the best solution in allowing mobile phone use in a car but forbidding the touching of the phone while driving. This seems like an effective and appropriate solution especially since it allows the driver to continue to benefit from the growing range of applications that provide for enhanced safety.

  Throughout the world the race is on to bring advanced safety systems to cars. The European Union most recently detailed their plans to mandate safety technologies. One can only hope the EU will not proceed to define which technology is used, as in the case of eCall. If there is anything that has slowed down the advance of connected safety systems in European cars it has been the pursuit of a mandated technology on top of the application mandate.

  Meddling governments – operating with the best of intentions – have repeatedly intruded on new technology development and instead of stimulating innovation and competition have quashed both. In the case of eCall, the in-band modem technology selected by the EU arrives as an already outdated solution that continues to be resisted at the Federal, OEM and public service access point levels. (In contrast, the
  U.S. is already well on the way to defining and deploying far more flexible digital solutions as part of its Next Generation 911 initiative - http://bit.ly/9jg576.)

  European research initiatives ranging from SISTER (http://bit.ly/cTiRxx) – which looks at satellite-based safety solutions – to AKTIV (http://bit.ly/b4og1K) – which looks at the efficacy of embedded cellular technology for safety apps – to TeleFOT (http://bit.ly/c9AeT8) – which is assessing nomadic device-based safety systems all reveal the range of available solutions capable of fulfilling the newly-minted EU program of safety system mandates (http://bit.ly/aNDSh1). 

  Even Ertico’s ADASIS, the Advanced Driver Assist Systems Interface Specification Forum (http://bit.ly/9Lkngj) has been considering smartphone-based solutions. At the most recent ADASIS meeting a solution was presented as part of a separate presentation showing a solution from ImaginYze (http://bit.ly/cUGFpM) offering an augmented reality lane departure warning solution based on a forward facing smartphone camera – a solution long in development - for portable navigation devices - from companies such as Navigon and Elektrobit. (Since its most recent meeting - July 5th - ADASIS has released a specification for map-based ADAS applications - http://bit.ly/axuJrc.)

  But it doesn’t stop there. About a dozen applications (http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ) have been launched around the concept of limiting mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, most notably Zoomsafer. Interestingly and maybe not surprisingly some of these companies have turned to commercial opportunities to enable safe use of mobile phones for fleet drivers. 

  Global Mobile Alert offers yet another application suited to both passenger vehicles and commercial applications. A $24.99 (per year) download for Android phones, which just launched two weeks ago, Global Mobile Alert is an application that uses a digital map as a sensor to warn drivers of approaching traffic lights, and school zones or railroad crossings, among other hazardous conditions (http://bit.ly/dhzigZ). 

  The Global Mobile Alert (GMA) crash avoidance application is the first of its kind and can be deployed in a smartphone or licensed for navigation systems or in-vehicle telematics systems. GMA provides audible alerts when a moving vehicle approaches an intersection at a dangerous predetermined speed. The objective of the application is to overcome driver distraction. (GMA licenses Navteq data for its application, although even Navteq’s database does not include every single traffic light, but Navteq was the only available source of this data.) Of course, systems have been tested and are in development to allow a smartphone to actually be aware of the status of upcoming traffic lights. This is not something the GMA app is capable of, but is likely to be available commercially in the near future.

  Interestingly, an almost identical solution to GMA is in development within the IntelliDrive community using DSRC technology – instead of a map – to alert drivers to oncoming vehicles at dangerous interections. Of course, the DSRC technology, which is years from being deployed, has a wider range of implied applications in that it enables vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication.

  In conclusion, government authorities will do well to do their best to avoid unintended consequences in their legistlative activities. The EU no doubt intended to speed the arrival of eCall by getting involved in the standards-setting process. All parties would agree today that the reverse has occurred. Similarly, in the drive to save drivers from distraction and the resulting fatalities, injuries and property damage, elected officials should be mindful of the distraction mitigating capabilities of smartphones. The source of the problem is the source of the solution.

  Posted by rlanctot @ 8:49 pm

• 26Jul

  Porsche Selects Autotxt for SVR Solution; Smartphone Integration Weighed

  Advanced Safety, Business Models, Connectivity, E/E Architecture, HMI, Hybrid and Electric Vehicles, LBS, Mobile phone, Navigation, Powertrain, Semiconductors, Sensors, Software, Telematics, Vehicle OEMs, microcontrollers No Comments

  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.

  Posted by rlanctot @ 11:01 am

• 15Jul

  WorldDMB Forum: Digital Radio Transforms Automotive Content Consumption

  Audio/Video, Business Models, Connectivity, Digital Broadcasting, HMI, LBS, Mobile phone, Navigation, Semiconductors, Software, Telematics, Traffic, Vehicle OEMs No Comments

  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

  Posted by rlanctot @ 3:28 pm

• 05Jul

  Latest Challenge for Sirius, Transition to XM

  Audio/Video, Business Models, Connectivity, Digital Broadcasting, Mobile phone, Telematics, Traffic, Vehicle OEMs, Vendors No Comments

  The cardiac kids at Sirius XM are at it again. After surviving years of multi-million dollar losses, a high-wire, company-saving merger with XM, and the downturn in auto sales, the company reported a strong first quarter in May. With auto sales recovering at the beginning of the year, Sirius was able to report revenue and subscriber increases and later revised its estimate of subscriber additions for the year to approximately 750,000. But now the ultimate test, the switch to XM, is on.

  The subscriber increase, which pushed the total close to 19M, reflected a net gain of 171,441 vs. a decline of 404,422 in the year-ago period. The numbers looked good, but they obscured the challenges arising from an increasingly competitive radio-listening landscape, the increasing inclination of car makers to make satellite radio an option rather than standard equipment and the impending termination of the Sirius half of the combined Sirius XM satellite network. All of these negatives were either swept from the table by the positive earnings report or were not mentioned at all on the earnings conference call.

  (In the interest of full disclosure allow me to acknowledge that I am a subscriber to both XM and Sirius services and enjoy the content, as do the members of my family. Each member of my family has his or her favorite stations and it is nice to know that those stations are available anywhere in the U.S.)

  Strategy Analytics consumer surveys in the U.S. show satellite radio lagging well behind traditional AM/FM as a must have in the car. While AM/FM is described as a must have by 88% of respondents, satellite radio is regarded as a must have by only 14%. Internet radio lags even further behind at 5% - but that is changing. Interestingly, U.K. survey respondents show a higher level of interest in digital radio (DAB or DMB), with 22% describing it as a must have in the car.

  The lack of enthusiasm for satellite radio reflected in the survey results is just one of several negative indicators. Another such indicator is the fact that the aftermarket for satellite radio products is almost non-existent. Just as car makers have been inclined to make satellite radio optional, makers of aftermarket head units have also tended to introduce systems that are “satellite ready” vs. offering one or the other system built in.

  And the market for portable devices enabled for satellite radio has been limited thus far. Sirius XM is line extending into the iPhone app marketplace, but here, again, the company will run up against music services and Internet radio. The music services leverage more liberal licensing models for storing and managing music and Internet radio will benefit from the increasing proliferation of programming guides such as Stitcher or RadioTime to access interesting and relevant local content including podcasts. Of course, these services also benefit greatly from having a two-way link.

  Millions of consumers are turning to music services and Internet radio. Car and handset makers are developing ways to integrate these music services (ie. Slacker, Pandora) and Internet radio (ie. IHeartRadio) into their platforms – while carriers are scrambling to introduce tiered data programs to shield themselves from the burgeoning traffic.

  While satellite radio is increasingly optional either from the factory or in the aftermarket, HD Radio is increasingly standard equipment on cars. But the real killer for Sirius is unfolding in recent meetings with OEMs. Sirius has told its clients, which include BMW, Mercedes, Chrysler, Ford, Kia, Land Rover, Jaguar and many others, that they must switch to XM by 2016. For the car makers that helped make Sirius XM what it is today, there are no special subsidies, no silver bullet hardware fix or retrofit. There is simply a notification that they must switch from Sirius to XM by 2016.

  The bottom line, of course, is that the two satellite systems – one based on a satellite in geosynchronous orbit and one on satellites in geostationary orbits and using similar frequencies – require different receivers and antennas. In spite of a legal requirement in the merger agreement that the companies find a solution for interoperability, nothing beyond a combination of the two incompatible receivers and antennas was ever introduced in the market.

  The quiet announcement of the switch to XM, though long anticipated, is surprising for a number of reasons:

  1. The companies must have known this day would come when they originally merged, yet it was never acknowledged until recently that one of the satellite networks would have to be sacrificed.

  2. Given the fact that subscriber growth has reached a plateau it is clear that Sirius XM can ill afford to lose half its subscribers. And winning new subscribers in the current competitive environment will be a challenge especially as auto sales – the source of the majority of new subscribers – continue to move sideways, failing to provide the engine satellite radio so desperately needs.

  3. Car makers – including several premium marks - are incensed that Sirius is making this unilateral change with little or nothing in the way of guidelines or even a public information campaign strategy. Sirius has made no public statement yet and company representatives have failed to respond to repeated requests for comment.

  4. There is also some irony in the fact that Sirius spent many years denegrating XM’s solution but in the end has chosen to consolidate on the XM platform.

  Long term, the good news is that the company selected to preserve XM, the more robust of the two solutions. XM was first to market with data solutions for weather (XM Weather in August 2003), traffic (XM NavTraffic on 2005 Acura RL and XM NavWeather on the Acura TL. Sirius made up some ground with the launch of Travel Link by Ford, but XM’s platform, including its terrestrial repeater network, is better suited to providing a wider range of content and services to drivers.

  If Sirius can keep car makers on board with a vision of low-cost, nationwide content delivery – and the higher ARPU implied therein – it may emerge profitably and competitively vis-à-vis smartphone and digital radio-based solutions. But the company is changing gears just as these new solutions are gaining momentum and at a time when car makers have little patience for another high-wire act.

  Further Insight: CES 2010: The Arrival of Converged Automotive Multimedia Products - John Canali -  http://bit.ly/9gq4yo

  Automotive Bluetooth: Profile Strategy Key to Infotainment Success - Mark Fitzgerald - http://bit.ly/9qEXbU

  Internet Radio: Ready for Prime Time - Mark Fitzgerald - http://bit.ly/ZBXzd

  Internet Radio to Vie with Music Services for Automotive Dominance - Lanctot - blog - http://bit.ly/9xm6qR

  WorldDMB Car Manufacturers Workshop - Munich - July 7 - Arrange meeting with Strategy Analytics - http://bit.ly/aUcqgm

  Posted by rlanctot @ 3:37 pm

• 27Jun

  Freescale TechForum: App Stores, Android Coming to Cars – Like It or Not!

  Business Models, Connectivity, HMI, Mobile phone, Semiconductors, Sensors, Software, Telematics, Vehicle OEMs, microcontrollers No Comments

  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

  Posted by rlanctot @ 2:02 pm

• 23Jun

  Freescale TechForum: BMW, Broadcom Leading Auto Industry into Ethernet Era

  Audio/Video, Business Models, Comfort/Convenience, Connectivity, Digital Broadcasting, E/E Architecture, Semiconductors, Sensors, Software, Vehicle OEMs, microcontrollers No Comments

  After leading the industry into the world of MOST and Linux (Genivi), BMW is raising yet a new leadership banner – this time for the implementation of Ethernet in the car. BMW is certainly not the only car company looking at Ethernet transport for data and video, but the company has made powerful statements at two high profile industry events with a solution developed in partnership with Broadcom that will transform the industry.

  First tipped at the Ludwigsburg Fachkongress Elektronik last week. BMW’s solution brings a potentially lower cost, higher speed solution to the thorny challenge of transporting data and video in the car. At Freescale’s Technology Forum this week, the company made yet another presentation of its case for Internet along with a clever technology demonstration integrating a spoon within a twisted-pair connection to make its case for the robustness of the technology. This was hooked up to a dual-core Freescale gateway MCU to show that Ethernet can already be linked into the vehicle network structure.

  The case for Ethernet is powerful. BMW uses data from Strategy Analytics to make the case that data volume in the car is increasing rapidly driven by rearseat entertainment, in-car TV and camera-based parking aids. At the same time the average number of network nodes in the average car is also expanding rapidly. In fact, according to BMW, again sourcing SA data in part, the number of Ethernet ports to be shipped worldwide, nearly 800M, in 2010 is only a bit more than the 650M automotive ports shipped in the same period, counting broadband, safety bus, CAN, LIN, and SineBUS etc.

  BMW points out that Ethernet is proliferating in a wide range of industries including everything from aviation to industrial automation and telecommunications. That proliferation translates to lower cost – for hardware, software and development – vs. the main alternative, MOST. In spite of increasing support for MOST, the technology remains expensive as do the costs of development and for the engineers with appropriate knowhow.

  BMW has been pursuing automotive Ethernet implementation since at least 2005 when it developed Ethernet-based flash software updating for 2008 series vehicles. Also for 2008, BMW brought an Ethernet-based datalink to the market for rearseat entertainment. For model year 2013, the company intends to bring an Ethernet-based videolink to market for a park assist camera solution for the X5.

  The development comes from a cooperation with Broadcom – using a version of BroadR-Reach technology for enabling full-duplex operation over a single twisted pair. With BroadR-Reach, Ethernet and IP services can now be deployed at 100Mbps. The next challenge for BMW and its partner are to establish an industry standard and licensing scheme for the new solution. BMW has already made the first steps with IEEE to define a standard for its solution (http://bit.ly/dep3jw).

  To achieve its objective of broad industry adoption and correspondingly lowered costs, BMW will be working closely with Broadcom to open up the technology to licensees. BMW says it has already established a clearinghouse strategy and appears to have Broadcom’s support. BMW is already in talks with other auto makers to share the technology to spur its adoption. BMW is keen to avoid the disappointment that has come with the implementation of MOST technology which was not only expensive to develop and deploy but remains so years after wider industry adoption. BMW does not claim to be replacing MOST with Ethernet, but acknowledges that Ethernet is best suited to MOST-related applications.

  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

  Posted by rlanctot @ 6:21 pm

• 20Jun

  Ludwigsburg: OEM Schizophrenia Infects Automotive OS Debate

  Audio/Video, Business Models, Mobile phone, Navigation, Software, Telematics, Vehicle OEMs No Comments

  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

  Posted by rlanctot @ 8:42 am

« Previous Entries