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.

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: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/32801/tomtom-looks-to-app-store) 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 (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/), 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:

• Geolocation API (http://www.w3.org/TR/geolocation-API/) – provides location context to web content
• Canvas Element (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5#canvas) – provides a potential way to create rich content similar to Adobe Flash

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)

Learn something new every day

I just had one of those moments where I questioned my intelligence or at least my skill of observation.

I have been a traveler for business for nearly 20 years and for most of my career I have been in automotive yet I only just learned something new about cars that you might find funny.  For sure this knowledge would have been useful these many years. 

Before getting to this new gem, let me quickly describe my typical car rental return: 

• I am usually late for a flight
• I did not select the "pre pay fuel" option
• I usually know where a nearby gas station is
• I almost always pull into a gas station with my car door open and my neck straining to see which side of the car the fuel tank access is on
• I pick wrong about 30% of the time. . . which usually means turning the car around

Please tell me I am not the only one that can't figure out which side of the car to offer up to the fuel pump?  Please?

Dan Brown would scoff and my inability to recognize the symbolism on the typical fuel guage in the typical car. (see below)

When did car manufacturers add in that little arrow?  Why wasn't it highlighted in drivers ed?  Why have I missed it all of these years?  Wow!  I feel really dumb.

GenIVI – “Generally Expected Not for In Vehicle Infotainment”

Last week at the Intel Developer’s Forum (IDF) in San Francisco, Intel CEO, Paul Otellini announced in his keynote that Intel’s Atom processor would be used in upcoming 2012 Model Year BMW and Daimler vehicles. The OS to be used? QNX Neutrino RTOS. What I find interesting is:

• BMW is THE leading advocate for Linux in automotive and founding board member of GenIVI


• Intel created GenIVI and is a founding board member that pushed Linux as the only OS for GenIVI (see my comments on that approach here: http://automotive-infotainment.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-license-is-single-point-of-failure.html) and primarily focused on the Atom Architecture


• WindRiver was recently acquired by Intel (see my blog comment on this: http://automotive-infotainment.blogspot.com/2009/06/wintel-becomes-windtel.html) for it’s Linux competence and is also a founding member of GenIVI

So at the end of the day team GenIVI didn’t give itself the win in stacked competition? You have to wonder why that might have been? Perhaps we should look to Linus Torvalds’ recent commentary at LinuxCon where he stated that the Linux kernel has become "huge and scary" and that it isn't "the streamlined, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned when I started writing Linux."

Perhaps GenIVI should consider its OS strategy. . . QNX might be a good choice

Context aware displays – “Can you see me now”

I was just reading an article in the Economist describing “the connected car” http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13725743. One point in the article got me thinking. Specifically, it mentioned a modern car having as many as 200 on board sensors or microprocessors “measuring everything from tire pressure to windscreen temperature”.

Modern vehicles now are gathering so much information and have access to not only data relating to the car, but to location, speed, points of interest, music, traffic, . . . the problem suddenly becomes how to communicate this information to the driver in a relevant and safe way. This emphasizes the recent explosion of automotive interest in digital displays that can reconfigure information being portrayed based on context, or what you are doing at the time. An example of the most advanced display of this type can be found in the recent announcement by QNX and Visteon about their work on the 2010 Range Rover cluster “...the largest TFT LCD ever to ship in a vehicle”. You can read more about it here: http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/08-04-2009/0005071387&EDATE=

Basically, information can now be configured to display what is relevant to the driver at a given time. For example, when the car is put into reverse, rather than display tachometer information, a rear backup camera can display the image of what is behind the car, or perhaps when the Range Rover is in 4x4 mode information about the terrain can be displayed. Additionally, vehicles with new fuel technologies have all new types of information that can be displayed relating to fuel savings, best route to conserve battery, all kinds of “green” information that can be displayed. I can promise you the new Volt will have a digital display.

Another revolution is driving the adoption of these brilliant displays in vehicles. The revolution of a joyful user experience, arguably started by Apple (iphones, ipods, macs, etc.), is making its way into your automobile. Apple didn’t create the first MP3 player, heck I had an RCA Lyra in the early 1990s. What Apple did was make experiencing digital music easy and “joyful” oh and legal of course. The iphone took this a step further and made complicated information relevant to location, interests, search, social networking, photography, etc. also easy and pleasurable to experience.

Major vehicle brands have taken note. Not only will you be able to get access to a variety of information, when you need it, but also you will see vehicle brands embracing the latest user interface technologies to capture a bit of the magic that comes from making an experience visually pleasing and easy to use. These new reconfigurable displays will do just that. So get ready, your speedometer is about ready to get a major facelift.

“Say, Say, Say” it’s not so,. . . Michael Jackson is "Gone Too Soon"!

You know the media will now take the situation and "Beat It" to death. . . they just "Don't Stop Until You Get Enough". If you are frustrated by all of the coverage, "You are not alone". Personally, I think it is "Bad" also. I know many "Wanna be startin somethin" and post a flame or blog about it, and that is just "Human Nature", but perhaps you should look at "The Man in the Mirror" and try to find a way to "Heal the World" without all of the dramatic flair.

Not that I think any of us should keep it "in the closet", but a negative post is "Dangerous" and makes some people want to "Scream". Instead, take a nostalgic trip to the past. . ."Remember the Time" you drove in your car listening to a Michael Jackson “Jam”? Or when you were out searching for a "P.Y.T", perhaps named "Dirty Dianna", or "Billie Jean".

Don’t remember Michael in terms of "Black or White", or even about him being the “Smooth Criminal” that he was, but instead, think, if you could see him right now, what would inspire you to say "you rock my world". Focus on his aspects of being a "Thriller" and entertainer. After all, the one thing he for sure taught us was that, together, "We are the World".

Sorry. . . had to do it. When I started this blog I made the obscure reference to zombies as well as automobiles being discussed on this blog. Well, if I could think of a critical memory of my first car ever it was driving my AMC Javelin (automotive), listing to Thriller (zombies) with my Carver tape deck. This post is to pay my respects to that memory, and heck it's my blog. . . it doesn't have to be always strictly automotive. =)

"Wintel" changes its meaning

In case you missed the news, on June 4th, Intel purchased the embedded Operating System company, Wind River. You can read the press release here:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090604corp.htm

Having worked in the embedded market since the early 90s it is interesting to see the evolution from the tight Intel and Microsoft coupling, once sarcastically referred to as "Wintel", deteriorate to to the point that perhaps the new slang should be Lintel (as there is little doubt that Intel's acquisition was for the Linux part of Wind River).

With speculation that Windows 7 may get ported to the ARM architecture and Intel grasping at the handset and mobile markets with Linux, the marriage between Microsoft and Intel seems to be near to an end. Interestingly, the day before the Intel purchase, a Microsoft spokesperson had this to say about the rumors of a Windows 7 ARM port:

“At this time, Windows 7 does not support any ARM architecture. Currently, Windows works on both x86 and x64 platforms, which, thanks to the pervasive PC hardware standard, power the vast majority of the world’s laptops and desktops. In the specialized devices space, where ARM is well suited, we offer the Windows Embedded CE platform.”

Notice the key phrase "at this time". I, for one, hope Windows 7 comes to ARM as I would like to finally see some real battery life out of full featured Microsoft based laptop.

I once joked with my nerdy friends that "10 years ago would you have thought that Apple would run a PC (X86) Architecture (instead of Power Architecture / PPC) and Microsoft would run PPC (like they do in the XBOX 360)." Perhaps the relationship was changing as far back as 6 or 7 years ago when those decisions were made. Being involved in the original Xbox concept with AMD and bearing witness to Intel's power with Microsoft back then really makes the situation shocking.

So, what is my opinion of the Intel acquisition? It may help Intel build some credibility in the handset space for their first *almost* capable part, the Intel ATOM, particularly given the involvement in Android by Wind River. Also, I think Android will start to be an operating environment that will directly challenge the traditional OS model that is the mainstay of Microsoft. So battle lines may in fact be being drawn around these new class of netbooks, perhaps looking something like Microsoft and ARM vs Intel and Google.

As for the embedded market: I think the real winners in Intel's acquisition will be the other embedded Linux vendors, like Montavista, and Real Time OSes, like QNX. Fear of limited support for other hardware may send Wind River customers en mass to alternatives and ARM licensees (TI, NEC, ST, Freescale, etc.) will be looking for new partners.

My letter to President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I have a proposal to save the government, and therefore the US taxpayer (me), billions of dollars per year in both real, physical infrastructure spending as well as billions more related to the economic burden of congestion. Here’s how:

In the recent “Autopocalypse” unfolding, the US taxpayer has pumped over $15 billion into General Motors. While I am no bankruptcy expert, if GM seeks protection, as seems likely, I believe the taxpayer will see minimal, if any, return on that investment. GM is sitting on a HUGE asset to the public good, namely Onstar. GM has shipped over 16 million vehicles equipped with Onstar and is likely to ship 3 million more this year alone.

Onstar can collect data relating to average speed, weather conditions, incident reports and many other useful bits of data that today the federal and state governments spend billions to duplicate and disseminate to the public (road sensors, traffic monitors, cameras etc.). Due to cost, this information is only captured for the major metropolitan areas and is often an aggregation of sensors, 911 incident data, etc. By the time the DOT, and public sector aggregators transmit that data, it is often out of date. With over 16 million Onstar “probes” on the road today much of this information could be gathered in real-time without added infrastructure costs.

My proposal is to negotiate a non-exclusive right for the government to gain access to information from Onstar, in an obfuscated way, relating to speed, weather (wind shield wipers on / off, etc.), crash, etc. That information could replace physical infrastructure spend on street sensors, cameras, etc. Additionally, it could provide more current real-time traffic, weather, etc. data that both the public and the private sectors could aggregate (like they do now from the DOT) and disseminate to consumers in a way that would reduce commute times and accidents.

The NHTSA estimated “The 2000 economic costs of U.S. highway crashes, excluding the cost imposed on society by travel delays and wage-risk premiums, was $205 billion (Blincoe et al., 2002)”. Having data from Onstar could help reduce accidents, and therefore costs, related to traffic, but perhaps more importantly direct costs related to congestion. Some studies suggest congestion costs as much as $222 billion dollars / year (see: http://www.vtpi.org/tca/).

I think licensing this specific content would not decrease viability of GM, Onstar or any company trying to purchase Onstar assets as Onstar does not currently leverage this data.

So in summary, before allowing GM to sell off Onstar assets or loose this critical opportunity to leverage the money the taxpayer has already spent with GM, please consider my proposal:

· License GM / Onstar sensor / “probe” data (current and future) in an obfuscated way (to protect privacy concerns) – You don’t have to have the IT in place to use it yet, just negotiate the license!
· Save physical infrastructure costs related to congestion information for the taxpayer
· Gain more real-time information related to road conditions, congestion, incidents, weather than ever before
· Leverage the investment made in GM and Onstar by the US taxpayer
· Act quickly before this valuable asset is removed from access.

Thank you for your consideration.

Warmest Regards,

Andrew Poliak

P.S. I think this is a political “freebee” as I can’t think of a constituent you would be disappointing.

The New (Software) Tier 1

With regard to the automotive supply chain, what do you think of Microsoft, BSquare, Elektrobit, Apple, Google, and QNX? Traditionally, you would call these companies Tier 2 suppliers, meaning they supply services, support and technologies to the traditional Tier 1 suppliers — the Delphi, Visteon, Denso, Continental, etc’s of the world. Unless you have been living under a body control system (I didn’t think rock was appropriate), it should be very obvious that the interior electronic automotive supply chain is changing dramatically.

Take, for instance the role of Microsoft, Elektrobit, and Ford in the Sync project. Microsoft and Elektrobit really were the Tier 1 suppliers to Ford. For the next iteration it appears that Bsquare is the new Elektrobit in the mix. The “traditional” Tier 1 was quickly relegated to a contract manufacturer with a very small margin. Rumor has it that the Tier 1 could get bypassed altogether in future versions of Sync. According to this press release from Bsquare (http://www.bsquare.com/about/story.asp?PressID=507) “It used to be that auto makers went to companies like Continental, Delphi and Panasonics and ordered a component with a list of capabilities. "And a black box came back that fit in the dash," Crowley said. "Ford said, 'I'm going to break that cycle. I'm going to do this all myself.'"

What impact does this have to the industry in general? This new software tier 1 model has the potential to be challenging for traditional Tier1s, but also to OEMs given the automotive / economic doom and gloom. Why, you ask? Well obviously this new scenario may well impact traditional Tier 1s since now they are competing with the Flextronics of the world.

But for OEMs, at a time when cash conservation is critical, they are now paying for software up front rather than amortizing the software costs (Engineering, Tools, etc.) over a Tier 1’s piece price. Also, they no longer have such a strong buffer and share of risk for liability, warranty, indemnity (especially in the case of Linux investment), etc..

So what should be done? First, some misconceptions must be addressed. Tier 1 suppliers are, at heart, integrators and buffers for warranty, liability, etc. They are skilled not only in automotive lingo, but in the tough requirements and long term supply of the automotive market. I believe the complexity and cost of integration, version control, maintenance, updates, licensing, etc. are often under valued by car companies. As a result of this, IMHO, the new model of the software Tier 1 will have some growing pains before it matures. That being said, traditional Tier 1s need to embrace a more software-oriented skill set. Also, in the current economy, the temptation is to try to get more money up front from the OEMs. If your business can afford it, resist that urge and use it as a differentiator against this trend.

For OEMs, perhaps holding off a bit on the new world of Linux, Software Tier 1s and upfront investment (by you and your suppliers) in software is in order — at least until the economic situation improves. Let the early adopters of this strategy prove out the model (and risk) before wading in. It will allow you to manage cash in this critical time and keep your suppliers healthy. You know often they don’t just provide infotainment — you depend on them for quite a bit more.

When a license is the "single point of failure"

Last week, at CeBit, I had the opportunity to witness the launch of the GenIVI consortium. Graham Smethurst, of BMW, did an excellent job summarizing the challenges facing automotive OEMs and Tier 1s that led to the creation of GenIVI. The theory is that you can plug-in any conforming middleware (speech rec, navigation engine, etc.) into the GenIVI framework. The ultimate goal of GenIVI being to create standard interfaces to reusable modules. I walked away struggling with only one point: his contention that everything in GenIVI was created to remove any "single point of failure".

The reason I struggled with this point was because of the use of a single OS, Linux, for GenIVI. While there might be many distributions of Linux they all share one thing in common the GNU Public License (GPL). If Linux is the only OS for GenIVI, then it stands to reason that GPL then becomes THE single point of failure. (see my thoughts on GPL in automotive)

If it were me, I would have built GenIVI on an industry standard API like POSIX rather than a specific OS. In this way even the OS licensing could be varietal (GPL, LGPL, BSD, etc.)