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:

http://www.terminalmode.org/en/Events/registration

To learn more about Terminal Mode in general:
http://www.terminalmode.org/en/developer/Downloads/

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.

Legislation

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?

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?

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

"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.

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.

CeBit 2009 - Infotainment Comparison

Wow! CeBit exhibition was down almost 30% from last year and nearly 50% from its peak. And, though I heard official numbers put attendance down only 20% from last year, it seemed to me more like 50%. With the number of backpacks that seemed to emerge on Thursday and Friday, I wonder if attendance was inflated with students.

All of that being said, automotive was well represented with booths and / or attendance by GM, Audi, VW, BMW, PSA and others. Tier 1s, Continental and Harman Becker, each had demonstration systems . . . with the HBAS system far more responsive and impressive (see video comparison)

I would have compared the GenIVI Linux based solution, but as you can see from the HBAS video, Intel is still pushing the QNX based demonstrations as the Linux system doesn't yet exist. ;)

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.)