Thursday, August 4, 2011

My blog post has an early "Edge"

I am wrong a good portion of the time, but it is nice when a prediction seems to be true. If you caught this announcement by Adobe about their new HTML 5 tool called Edge, it seems as though my blog prediction (Here) could have been correct. Time will tell. What do you think?

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Nokia says "Meego with another OS" and Terminal Mode goes "Terminal"

Ok, how about a little controversy.  I won't bother spending too much time discussing Nokia's choice to drop Meego and that choice's impact on GenIVI.  In fact, I will say that it is just one more blow to the organization, that in my opinion lost any hope of broad market adoption about a year ago, but in any case, they will just pick up and move on to the next GUI / Application framework.  There was already debate within GenIVI if Meego was ever their "official" direction to begin with.  Likely, they might pick something a little more credible in automotive.  Frankly, even though QT is also associated with Nokia, I think it is more likely that QT will continue to have a life, even given Nokia's selection of Microsoft as their phone platform.  I wouldn't be surprised to have QT attempt to resuscitate life into GenIVI working groups, but still don't hold out much hope.

I think what I am more interested to share are my views on the impact of the Nokia decision to Terminal Mode.  Unlike GenIVI, Terminal Mode was gaining a bit of traction, or more specifically, not Terminal Mode per se, but VNC.  There were some very fundamental problems with Terminal Mode, for example since Terminal Mode lacked a great policy management story (what is allowed to be displayed when a vehicle was in motion) every tier 1 was implementing their own policy management solution.  This created issues for OEMs looking to implement solutions across multiple Tier 1s or multi-sourced production programs. 

Not being intimately involved in the working group, I will say my limited understanding was that the Terminal Mode supporters were looking to address this issue by creating a consortium of Terminal Mode participants that could address policy management and rank applications on a scale of "appropriateness" to use while the vehicle was in motion.  Since this appeared to be based on self certification by application vendors, this approach seemed questionable, to me, for automotive use.

Another major challenge to Terminal Mode was performance.  I think this is where the choice by Nokia has the most significant impact to Terminal Mode.  For anyone who has seen a Windows Phone 7 user interface, you would know that UI is in constant motion and transition.  It is the same UI that in a recent survey by Nokia is "one of the most exciting aspects of Microsoft deal" according to a Nokia poll released this week. Click here to see the Engadget Article

Already Terminal Mode was being bashed by their own supporters of the VNC approach, even within the CE4A.  The reason, performance, but such an animated, constantly moving UI like the one in Windows Phone 7 would, in my opinion, grind already sketchy performance to a halt. 

I have no doubt that there might be some creative engineers at Nokia who could have addressed the performance issues of Terminal Mode in a Windows Phone 7 environment, but I have a feeling Microsoft might have ideas on a more elegant application / screen sharing solution.  So without Nokia backing Terminal Mode, I think you see a short term VNC approach as an interim solution for sharing specific applications from a phone to a head unit, but I don't see formal Terminal Mode existing in the long term.

So what do I think will be the right solution?  Video (like iPod Out) or HTML (like Blackberry Bridge).

I will do a more in depth blog about iPod Out vs Terminal Mode vs HTML / Blackberry Bridge vehicle integration soon.

Thanks to Alistair and Jorg from Nokia let me provide a few links to Terminal Mode if you want to learn more.  I appreciate the education guys:

To learn about the Terminal Mode event March 23rd in Japan:
To learn more about Terminal Mode in general:

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Can Tier 1 Suppliers Keep Pace with Consumers - my thoughts from January 2008

Quick note:  Um . . . Sorry for my lack of posts.  The last 6 months were a blur.  My New Year resolution is to post more.  

Ok, just to give everyone a preview of what I am working on in terms of posts.  You can expect a post comparing VNC - "Terminal Mode", Video - iPod Out and HTML / HTML 5 - Blackberry Bridge in my next post.  Stay tuned.

Blast from the past. . . My thoughts about automotive and the changing role of the Tier 1 -- from January 2008

In one of my last posts I detailed what I thought we might see in automotive electronics in 2015.  That post got me thinking about my past predictions so I thought I would take a look at some old articles and blog starts that didn't make it to my blog.  I found an article I had composed exactly 3 years ago (January 2008).  I thought it would be interesting to share.

Let me set your expectations.  This article was created shortly after Toyota had announced that they were going to build an Automotive OS.  This never came to fruition, and in fact QNX just announced with Toyota that QNX would be one of the technology providers for Entune.  So let me just post this for your entertainment . . . Please Don't Judge.

Can Automakers and Tier 1 Automotive Suppliers Keep Pace with Consumer Demand?

January 2008 marked an automotive industry first. Not the release of a new hybrid engine, crash-avoidance system, or other product innovation, but rather the first time an automotive manufacturer, General Motors, delivered a keynote address at CES, the world’s premier consumer electronics trade show. Rick Wagner, the CEO of GM, told the CES crowd that “...if automobiles were invented today, I am pretty sure they would debut right here at CES... because more and more, that’s exactly what today’s cars and trucks are — highly sophisticated consumer electronics.”

Given this statement, it’s no surprise that developers of car infotainment and telematics systems face the same challenges as developers of other consumer devices. These challenges include shrinking development times, growing design complexity, and the need to accommodate modifications close to, or in some cases, after production. Case in point: When consumers buy a car today, they expect its infotainment system to work with the latest iPods, Bluetooth phones, or Internet services — even if the system was built before those devices or services appeared on the market. To satisfy these user expectations, many car stereos and infotainment systems must now support in-field upgrades.

To address these challenges, automakers and Tier 1 suppliers rely increasingly on software. In 2006, VDC senior analyst Matt Volckmann projected that “software alone will soon account for over 12% of the value of a car.” GM has long realized this fact. Back in 2004, Dr. Anthony Scott, the company’s chief information technology officer, stated that many GM products “...have become reliant on software to the point that they could not be sold, used, or serviced without it.” GM, of course, isn’t alone in its dependence on software; other automakers are in the same boat.

The growing use of software in the vehicle interior can, in fact, be traced to several market requirements, including personalization, brand differentiation, legislation, and connectivity to off-board devices and services. Each factor presents a challenge, as well as an opportunity, to automakers and their Tier 1 suppliers.

Personalization and differentiation

If the 1990s belonged to the “me” generation, the current decade belongs to the “my” generation. At every turn, consumers have the freedom to personalize their digital lifestyles, from customized face plates for their XBoxes to personal web pages on MySpace (2011 note: LOL Myspace). In Europe, for example, sales of personalized ringtones are expected to hit $1.1 billion in 2008. Capitalizing on this trend, some car-infotainment systems already allow drivers to generate playlists of their favorite music and to customize the in-dash display with personal photos.

In effect, automakers are using software to create the “MyCar.” The goal is to help consumers develop a more personal bond with their car and, not incidentally, the car’s brand. In an industry where the volume of new cars sold per year is relatively flat, the ability to maintain the loyalty of existing customers and to attract consumers from other brands is key.


Citing safety concerns, many governments have passed laws that forbid the use of certain consumer electronic devices or services while driving. Case in point: In January 2008, Washington became the first U.S. state to criminalize text messaging while driving. To automakers, this trend presents an opportunity. If they can somehow enable consumer electronics, content, and services (often with location-aware features such as local traffic reports) to interact in a safe, reliable, and legal way, then they can differentiate their brand and build greater customer loyalty. (2011 Note: Interesting what we have found about the law banning texting and it's effects)

This is where software comes into play. Automakers are driving investments in software to enable safe, engaging, and often multi-modal interactions with mobile phones, portable navigation devices (PNDs), portable media players, and so on. And, as connectivity to the vehicle becomes ubiquitous, off-board services and content are being specifically tailored for the challenging automotive environment (noise, distraction, etc.) and even enhanced to form new automotive experiences for the consumer.

Two ends of the spectrum

Both these approaches have major implications for the automaker’s business, as well for the entire supply chain, including traditional Tier 1 suppliers. With the first approach, the automaker can focus on its core competencies, while leveraging a vendor that has more experience in creating consumer-oriented software. The automaker may also benefit from the brand recognition and marketing know-how of the software vendor. But at the same time, the automaker must exercise firm control to ensure that the solution is of sufficient quality — a challenge if the vendor has little experience in addressing the reliability requirements of the automotive sector. Also, if the software vendor extends its offering to other car companies, the automaker loses its market differentiator. (2011 Note:  Ford Sync had a rich experience, but a simplicity on the OS and middleware that kept Microsoft in it's sweet spot.  We are seeing how this approach with Microsoft is falling apart as complexity increases like with MyTouch)

This approach can also impact the Tier 1 supplier, who is now supplanted to some degree by the consumer software vendor. To counter this effect, Tier 1 suppliers must develop high levels of expertise in both software design and integration. In some infotainment systems, the software now comprises thousands of modules, creating an opportunity for any organization capable of advanced software integration. The need to keep pace with consumer electronics and services will also grow unabated. The more that Tier 1 suppliers develop expertise in these roles, the more they can maintain their importance in the automotive supply chain.

Automakers who adopt the “roll your own” approach can also present challenges to the traditional Tier 1 supplier. In this approach, the automaker has chosen, with the possible help of third parties, to become a software company. The question is, can the automaker ship enough vehicles to sustain a thriving ecosystem around their infotainment operating system? Will there be enough cars using the automaker’s proprietary platform to encourage third parties who specialize in speech technologies, multimedia, and consumer-electronics integration to support the platform and to keep it at the forefront of innovation? Also, will the burden of constantly enhancing or growing this automotive software stack remain with the automaker or eventually fall to the automaker’s Tier 1 supply chain? These answers may take a decade to determine, but at the heart of this approach is the automaker’s resistance to outsource a fundamental differentiator such as software.

Middle ground (2011 Note: Feel free to skip this part. . . its my pitch)

Some automakers are taking a third, “middle ground” approach. They continue to use industry-standard, automotive-grade hardware and software components from their traditional Tier 1 supply channel. However, they also work with these suppliers to integrate consumer electronics, services, and even automaker-specific technologies to create unique brand value and intellectual property. This approach still impacts the supply chain. In particular, the Tier 1 supplier is expected to serve as a system integrator, building a base platform of hardware and software components and then working closely with the automaker to integrate the automaker’s value-added intellectual property on top of these base platforms.

To address this challenge, some Tier 1 suppliers are building “open” software platforms that can accommodate a variety of requirements, without significant re-engineering. In most cases, these platforms combine a general-purpose 32-bit CPU with a standards-based real-time operating system (RTOS). The OS chosen typically provides a virtual-mode architecture with support for memory protection, which enables greater fault resilience and software upgradeability. In some cases, the OS also offers time and space partitioning, which simplifies integration by providing a guaranteed budget of CPU time and memory for each software subsystem. For instance, the system designer can specify that the HMI always gets 10% of CPU time, MP3 playback gets 20%, navigation gets 30%, etc. This approach prevents task starvation problems, which often cause serious delays at the integration phrase.

Increasingly, car radios, infotainment systems, and navigation units must interact with MP3 players, USB storage keys, DVD players, and digital media cards, not to mention future devices based on WiFi and Bluetooth data networking. To support this requirement, the OS must implement a modular and dynamic software architecture. For instance, a microkernel OS can mount and unmount file systems “on the fly” as consumer devices are plugged in or plugged out. The OS can also dynamically start and stop any hardware drivers that the devices may require. With this approach, an in-car system can support new media devices by simply downloading a small software “patch.”

Choosing the right approach

Coming full circle back to General Motors, it is no accident that Rick Wagner spoke at CES. You can see that companies like GM are looking at the car interior much like consumer electronics manufacturers look at their products. And, like consumer device manufacturers, automakers are relying more and more on software to differentiate their products. The battle for the consumer is playing out in the interior of the vehicle and, increasingly, software is becoming the weapon of choice."

So what do you think?  What did I get right?  What did I get wrong?  What has yet to play out?

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

R.I.P. Unlimited Data - Now what?

North America, well specifically the US, was one of the only regions in which you could find unlimited data plans, but now wireless carriers, starting with AT&T, have begun to match the rest of the world by offering tiered / usage based data plans. This has interesting implications for automotive OEMs looking to build the next "connected" car.

To date you had 3 main ways to provide connectivity into the vehicle: Embedd a cellular radio, use data over a voice channel (think Ford's connected services over Airbiquity’s “modem”), or use some creative interaction with data provided by a consumer's handset. I will avoid the word "tethering" because, in fact, most of the carriers used to block formal tethering due to the unlimited rate plans. So this 3rd method I mention involved creative interactions between an application on the users handset and the vehicle. An example of this is PandoraLink.

PandoraLink in essence uses a command and control interface from a vehicle to "speak" to a Pandora application running on a handset and then stream that audio back into the car. This is an excellent approach in the world of unlimited data because you weren't tethering and additionally, as an OEM, you didn't have to absorb (or pass along) the added BOM cost of an embedded radio nor the added usage fees.

Ok so now tiered data is available and restrictions on tethering go away (although tethering becomes quite costly). For services such as Pandora, eliminating unlimited data *may* have an effect, but for some emerging video and gaming services (ex: OnLive) the new approach by carriers will effectively prohibit them from launching in a mobile environment. Different groups argue about the consumption of bandwidth by streaming audio solutions and if a tiered data plan will have any effect.

So looking into my crystal ball what do I think will happen? Well in the past carriers tried to build everything themselves, apps, services, content solutions, etc. Now controlling bandwidth gives them a new negotiating tool. Imagine a popular video or internet radio application. Now a carrier doesn’t have to build a competitive solution to gain incremental revenue. Instead they can cut deals with popular services for revenue shares and then offer packages that remove the data cap for those services. For instance a carrier could cut a deal with a popular internet radio or video service for a cut of revenue and then offer a "OnLive" or “Youtube” data package. 2 gigs of data and unlimited OnLive gaming or Youtube streaming.

So what is the impact for automotive?  Well first of all, I think this removes the risk of the unknown as to what will happen when carriers remove unlimited data. The time is now. There are now predictable terms to build connectivity models for automotive around. Tethering will now be a real solution, it will just be up to the OEMs to predict if tethering will be an acceptable option given the added cost to consumers. I also think, now that models are established, there is risk for OEMs and programs that are trying to work around formal tethering through serial connections to content and services. I think this solution will be eventually be disrupted by the carriers, or worse put the OEM in a position that the carriers demand money for accessing this functionality.
If I was an OEM I would start business modeling around the potential revenue that could be attributed to local search, vehicle bus data, etc. and try to monetize it in such a way to support a “kindle” type of plan in a vehicle (either for tethering or an embedded radio).

There is money to be made inside the vehicle its just time to quantify and leverage it.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Linkedin post too windy - Infotainment 2015 and beyond

Recently I took part in a linkedin thread on the future of Infotainment (see original thread here: As I started to respond I realized that I had too much information for a simple post on a Linkedin group. So I took my response to my blog. Here it is:

(snip) Ok, so from my perspective the future of car infotainment is going to combine many of the posts in this thread (I will provide a summary then go into it a bit). For sure closer device connectivity will happen. Features that OEMs either find interesting business models around, are table stakes or that they want to ensure a consistent experience across all vehicle models and devices, will likely move to be built in. Then you will see a focus on cloud / internet based applications and services (with some partition with local content for non-connected times). Many of the systems will combine all three (pocket, cloud, car) applications, content and services.  How about a deeper dive into each of these areas?

The “Pocket”

In the short term, devices will address the impedance mismatch between the OEM vs Consumer device development cycles. You will first see this with standardized interfaces (like Bluetooth - SPP, MAP, etc.) but see much more device, and even application interaction with the vehicle. For example, we are seeing TONS of use cases for Bluetooth SPP for command, control and content sharing between vehicles and devices. In some cases Tier 1s and OEMs are relying on things like SLIP connectivity over SPP. I think you will see carriers block this functionality (IMHO) so be careful here. The next step will be application and potentially display sharing. You see this with Nokia Terminal Mode and Apple's new IPod Out. What Apple did right and Nokia will have to address is how to handle application / content policy management to block video / display sharing of content deemed not fit while driving (distraction, etc.). Again, in this way a new nav application, or other feature / content, could be either created by an OEM for a popular device and pushed to the vehicle, (perhaps even downloaded from a devices application store) or the OEM could enable other application vendors to target the car through the device.

The Car

Device connectivity and application sharing will be one method of enhancing (and being enhanced by) the vehicle’s interior environment, but it won’t be the only way. Enabling devices in an appealing, while safe, way in a vehicle will still necessitate quite a bit of electronics in the vehicle: Large displays, high end graphics processors, high end CPUs, Operating Systems, Speech recognition software, etc. All of this will still be in the vehicle even if much of the end users application experiences are enabled through the use of “pocket applications”. OEMs have a vested interest in a consistent end user experience for certain applications across all devices, carriers and vehicle models. Some of these applications over time will shift from being brought into the vehicle to being a feature too important to leave out of the vehicle or to need to rely on you always carrying your (associated) device.

As a related aside, my wife is driving our vehicle right now to the zoo. She just called me at work because she couldn’t remember the correct freeway exit. I started to say use the off-board navigation, but that services is paired to my phone (with me) not hers. . . what a pain.

So back on topic: Another thing to highlight is that new business models will emerge that OEMs will be remiss to not consider. Take for instance the sheer data an OEM’s telematics systems can collect. There are already rumors in the industry about trades being negotiated between Google and OEMs for vehicle data. There might be instances where enabling local search, maps, navigation, the display in a car, etc. might have financial benefits for the OEM or providing opt in “probe data / crowd sourcing” could benefit a driver in some way. In many cases implementing key features or even updating electronics and software will potentially be paid for by these new business models. Also, many costs currently absorbed into the vehicles BOM will be able to be offset by revenue associated with new business models. For example, Blackberry traffic was announced last year. This traffic application will be provided for free and will provide both real-time and historical traffic information. Traffic is something that has a significant cost in OEM systems today.

The “Cloud”

Audi MMI with Google Earth
Lastly, as ubiquitous connectivity comes to the vehicle more content and services will be able to shift to the “cloud” and the car will have the potential to be an application platform in its own right. Apple’s acquisition of Lala, Webkit and HTML 5 adoption, Google’s server based Voice Search, Microsoft’s Office and Azure, OnLive’s gaming experience . . . Just little proof points that consumer and business technologies are moving to embrace cloud based connectivity. You will see this have a dramatic impact in automotive. Costs will be offset by:

  •   removing large storage: used for map data, speech vocabulary, multimedia, . . .,
  •  license costs for speech rec, map and navigation data and algorithms, points of interest . . .
In addition to cost savings new revenue potentials will be revealed.  Some potential examples:
  • Geofenced advertising: “50% off pizza at Joes next exit”; “xyz, one of your favorite Pandora seed bands is playing a surprise show at the park up ahead”
  • Traffic brought to you by _________
  • Download the latest horn tone, or electric vehicle engine sound for $x
The real key in achieving the status as an application platform capable of driving an application and development community specifically targeting automotive will be rolling platform enabling electronics in all tiers of vehicles, enabling an open and consistent application environment and addressing the safety aspect of adding applications to a vehicle. OEMs under appreciate what potential they have for providing a large enough volume of devices to create an ideal platform for developers to target. Lets provide a bit of perspective. Apple has sold around 60 million iphones, since launch in 2007. I know my wife has owned 3 so not all of those phones are still in active use. Toyota ships in the neighborhood of 9 million cars per year. So in the same 3 year period you could have a very close volume of “active” “platforms” to target. Yes I am making some big leaps in this conclusion, but the point to make is that if a strategy is adopted to make an easy, open, rich, safe platform that can be inexpensive enough (or business models offset the cost) to launch into even low end vehicles cars themselves could have a rich development community of unique applications. And as more apps embrace the “cloud” HTML 5, Flash / AIR and other internet enabled technologies will touch the driver.

So what will the future of Infotainment be:  All of the above . . . likely at the same time. (/snip)

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Steve Jobs can’t kill Flash . . .

. . . but Adobe just might, but hold on I will get back to this.

Interesting bit of news when TomTom announced a couple of weeks ago, that they will be launching a Webkit based app store by the end of the year. (Link: So add Tomtom to the impressive list of companies adopting Webkit as their embedded browser strategy. Companies such as:
  • Apple (Safari)
  • Blackberry
  • Google (Chrome)
  • Palm / HP (WebOS)
  • QNX
  • Etc.
More important than just a common embedded web browser is the fact that many companies are positioning the browser as an application deployment scheme. Look again at the TomTom announcement. It isn’t that they are launching a web browser and connectivity into a device, but rather that they are launching an application platform based on HTML that could deploy new applications or widgets post purchase. If you look at Chrome and WebOS both of these implementations of Webkit are also effectively application platforms.

Now back to Flash. Despite his recent denials (, most people believe that Steve Jobs doesn’t want Flash on iPhones and iPads because it opens up a new application and content channel that can bypass iTunes / App Store and the accompanying business model. So, unless the government or consumer pressure compels Steve Jobs / Apple to include Flash, new reasons will materialize why Flash can’t technically work and it will stay off Apple devices. That alone won’t, in my opinion, kill Flash. What really makes it have wide adoption are those darn Mac loving web, content and UI designers that use Adobe tools. Flash is an easy development environment for rich experiences. . .

In my opinion what will ultimately kill Flash is Adobe developing a similar robust development environment for rich HTML experiences. Last year Adobe CEO Narayen said, "[T]he fragmentation of browsers makes Flash even more important rather than less important." With all the adoption of Webkit / HTML 5 for devices, perhaps it explains Adobe CTO, Kevin Lynch’s recent stand at the Web 2.0 Expo:

"We're going to try and make the best tools in the world for HTML5,” Adobe has a history of HTML tool development with products like Dreamweaver, he said, and called HTML5 "a terrific step forward" for the Web.

And since this is an automotive blog, what will automotive like about HTML 5? Here are just two of the many capabilities in HTML 5 catching interest in automotive:
P.S. with all of the attention on Apple regarding Flash. . . I wonder what Steve Jobs thinks of Silverlight?  Seems like Microsoft will have a serious battle getting any further adoption in Automotive since they are pushing Silverlight as their HMI of choice for the next version of Microsoft Auto (AKA Motegi)

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Ford throws in the kitchen "Sync" - My thoughts on Ford

For the first part of the last decade Ford was often viewed as the weakest of the herd of automobile manufacturers in the area of in-cab electronics. This was exemplified by the failure of the Ford / Qualcomm joint venture, Wingcast, in 2002.  As recent as 2006, Ford was still shipping systems with a branched version of PSOS from 1996 in most of their new vehicle systems – (ask me how I know. . . oh ya I have a 2006 Ford Escape Hybrid with a PSOS Nav system. PSOS. . . the acronym I can make from the name would be quite applicable . . . I digress) .

Ford quickly realized they were being outpaced in technology and needed a way to leapfrog the industry while removing costs from the supply chain that made it difficult to deploy systems in entry level vehicles.

Desperation breeds innovation and Ford was desperate. They reached out to software suppliers rather than the traditional Tier 1 supply chain. Thus the Microsoft, Elektrobit, Ford and to a lesser extent Continental based Sync was born. Microsoft needed a big win and Ford needed innovation.

Even though Ford didn’t do anything completely original, what they did was use technology and a new supply chain to provide features usually reserved for the highest end (often least techno-savvy) class of vehicles / consumers to the Facebook, Pandora crowd. They did this in a cost effective way that could be mainstream, in all classes of vehicles and link to a consumer’s favorite device.

Ford also took risks both with Microsoft from a quality and supplier perspective, but also in allowing for updates direct to the consumer.

People can argue about Microsoft and Ford’s approach but all the research I have seen shows that Sync is selling cars. There is no argument that Ford has got momentum among the big 3 and was the only one of them that didn’t seek Chapter 11 protection.

Ford is now seen as an electronic, business model and supply chain innovator, but also has had to deal with the shadow of Microsoft’s brand.

At CES, Ford continued to outpace its rivals by launching the MyTouch system. It is my belief that they are hedging their bets about Microsoft's commitment to automotive by moving to more generally available technologies (such as using Adobe Flash for the UI rather than Microsoft’s UI or Silverlight derivative. Originally Sync was just a repurposed Zune. . . Now rather than using the Silverlight flavor in the ZuneHD, Ford stepped away from Microsoft.

It will be interesting to see what comes next. For sure Ford put its rivals on notice again. Especially those considering GenIVI which likely won’t have anything like MyTouch available until 2015. . . I wonder what Ford will have then?