We love blogging and podcasting. We're going to remain ad-free for as long as possible, but all the equipment, storage, and bandwidth costs money! So we would really appreciate a donation. No donation is too small. Please help us pay the bills!
Just one month after GM emerged from bankruptcy, the automaker has made some big news. We speculated about what the company will announce during today’s presentation by CEO Fritz Henderson as well as what’s behind the 230 marketing campaign. Turns out we were half right – here’s the scoop!
The biggest news to emerge from the announcement is that the catchy “230″ marketing campaign that has been in play for the past week is related to the Volt: the EPA has released a new set of practices for determining a fuel economy standard for cars like the Volt (extended-range EV). Under the new methodology, the Volt will achieve a combined fuel economy rating of 230 mpg! That makes the Volt the first vehicle ever to pull of a triple digit fuel economy rating. Electrically-speaking, the Volt will consumer 25 kW/hour per 100 miles.
Henderson also announced the new GM FastLane blog, which the automaker will use to collect customer feedback on new designs. During the course of the next two years, GM will be launching 25 new models between its four remaining brands (Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac).
As soon as the webcast is finished, the media will be shown previews of the rumored new Cadillac XTS and small ATS sedans. The ATS will slot under the current CTS and will be aimed squarely at the BMW 3-series, with rear-and all-wheel drive. The XTS is the replacement for the outgoing large Caddy DTS and will be built atop the same platform (Epsilon II) that underpins the awesome new Buick LaCrosse.
These are very exciting announcements in the automotive world! As such, they should at least tickle the fancy of some non-gear heads. Stay tuned for pictures of the new models!
Maybe you’ve seen some form of the 230 ads. If you haven’t, we’ve embedded it below. The ad – in its various forms – features a bouncing, smiling, and winking electrical outlet that ends up representing the number “zero” after numbers 2 and 3. All of these appear above the numbers “8-11.” So what the heck is it all about?
Tesla Motors, the electric car start-up headquartered in San Carlos, California, has announced it has achieved profitability in the month of July. It took Tesla seven years to turn a profit – a feat many other start-ups never achieve. In the month of July 2009, the company earned $20 million in revenue, which exceeded expenses by about $1 million. Since Tesla is still a private company, it has no formal obligation to disclose details when it comes to publishing financial information. In that regard, the firm was very selective about what information it revealed. With that, let’s take a look at the details behind the numbers. Read more »
Democratic lawmakers are calling for states to ban texting and emailing while driving. The movement comes in light of recent studies that show the practice is more dangerous than drunk driving.
Since 2005, texting has grown eleven-fold – from 10 billion to 110 billion text messages sent per month in December of 2008, according to CTIA – the cellular phone industry’s trade group. As such, an increase in overall use of text messaging would naturally lead to an increase of doing so in the car. A recent study from Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that when drivers of heavy trucks texted, their collision risk increased by 23 times. Dialing a cell phone and using or reaching for an electronic device increased risk of collision about six times in cars and trucks. The researchers said the risks of texting generally applied to all drivers, not just truckers. A separate study by Car and Driver magazine found that texting and driving is more dangerous than drunken driving.
To date, 14 states as well as the District of Colombia have passed laws banning text messaging while conducting a vehicle. States that don’t implement the proposed laws would face highway funding cuts of around 25 percent. The legislation would be patterned after the way Congress required states to adopt a national drunken driving ban. However, some don’t think that the proposed laws would be effective enough.
Steve Largent, a former Oklahoma congressman who leads CTIA — The Wireless Association, said his organization supports “state legislative remedies to solve this issue. But simply passing a law will not change behavior. We also need to educate new and experienced drivers on the dangers of taking their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel.” The Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies, said it does not doubt the dangers of texting and driving but does not support a ban because it would be difficult to enforce: “Highway safety laws are only effective if they can be enforced and if the public believes they will be ticketed for not complying. To date, that has not been the case with many cell phone restrictions,” said Vernon Betkey, the highway safety association’s chairman.
This all looks to be a problem that should be solved by superior technology rather than increased lawmaking. The market should drive the tech industry to develop and improve in-car speech recognition and synthesis systems that would read incoming text messages or emails, and allow the driver to dictate a response to a message – all without having to look at the cellular device. Microsoft’s SYNC system (TNR coverage) is the most advanced in the marketplace in having both features, although it still needs to be improved in the areas of accuracy. Only available in Ford products (Ford, Lincoln, Mercury), the system also needs to become more widely available.
Anyone who listens to the TNR Podcast knows that we tend to talk about cars here and there: autos are technology, after all. Think of all the innovation that has occurred in the automotive space: air bags, very fuel-efficient engines that are also peppy to drive, self-adjusting cruise control, lane departure warning systems, decreased emissions, and the ability to drive on pure electricity – just to name a few. But sometimes it’s the small innovations that make the huge difference. Enter the 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid and its upmarket brother, the 2010 Mercury Milan Hybrid with a small but powerful innovation called SmartGauge. Read more »
In the last post, I posited that Microsoft’s SYNC will be the technology that brings the most differentiation to automobile electronics and that SYNC will finally unify the electronic interfaces in our vehicles. I’d like to follow that article up with a few comments.
In the current market, navigation systems (in general) are a point of differentiation between “smart cars” and “regular cars.” SYNC will provide this kind of differentiation, and more. Not only will people look for cars with navigation systems in the future, but SYNC will become the technology brand name car buyers will seek out. Just as features like airbags and all-wheel drive today are on the shopping lists of people who have a need for such features, SYNC will be on the same list of tech-conscious car shoppers. Some shoppers might even go so far as to purchase a car they like less overall, but with SYNC, than buy a car that’s more visually appealing and attractive, but lacking SYNC.
This can be seen today by the increased demand for Ford’s products that have SYNC as an option: namely the Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury brands. For example, customers might purchase the Ford Fusion sedan over the Honda Accord sedan just because the Ford has an option to be equipped with SYNC. However, the Accord might be a better car overall – as can be seen in many reviews (mainly because it’s newer). The trend here is that technology draws people to cars, and this trend is only going to accelerate as our tech becomes a bigger part of our mobile lifestyles.
Today, it’s in my and the consumers’ best interests that Microsoft license SYNC to manufacturers other than Ford and, conversely, that other manufacturers see the benefit in SYNC and decide to integrate it into their products. (I say this is interesting for me because there is currently no Ford product that is desirable to me, even with SYNC. That says something about Ford’s line-up more than it does about SYNC. I’d go for a VW GTI with SYNC in a heartbeat, for example). However, if Microsoft takes the Apple iPhone licensing route and decides to collect higher margins on Ford exclusivity, other competitors might enter the market. I don’t see Microsoft doing this, however, since I see the company most concerned with market share and market penetration – especially in the automobile market – a segment they have been wanting to be in for a long time.
Automotive electronics and “gadgetry” usually fall into three categories: audio/video entertainment units, communication centers, and GPS information systems. The navigation systems are becoming more popular, with almost all automakers having them available as options. However, devices in all three categories still lack user-friendliness for the average user and car-buyer. Although the car electronics (from here: car info-tainment) industry is getting better as a whole, it is still lagging on two major fronts:
Ease-of-use of the interface, and
Integration of the user’s devices in the car
Currently, different car brands use different interfaces to control the info-tainment units in their cars. These electronics range from radios, CD and DVD players, auxiliary input devices like iPods and other MP3 players, to GPS and voice-recognition systems. It takes time for drivers (as well as their passengers) to learn and get accustomed to these info-tainment systems. For example: Mercedes-Benz uses a completely different – hard-button solution to interface with its GPS and audio systems than does Lexus, which tries to eliminate hard-button clutter and use a touch-screen instead. The point is, however, that it is challenging – even for someone like myself (who lives and breathes tech) to use the current implementations of GPS interfaces. In the next few years, I believe that automobile manufacturers will need to rethink how users interact with their in-car entertainment and information electronics and completely re-invent the wheel. Why? For starters, the automobile info-tainment market is still in its infancy. To better understand this, let’s look at the the current desktop and notebook computer market – a market that is similar to the info-tainment market in that it too requires an integration of software and hardware, aiming to create a better, easy to use, and stable user experience.
Currently, there are only three major software operating systems for the personal computer market: Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows. All three environments share some similarities, but are different in their implementation and the rhetoric used to create them. In the end of the day, however, the user will be familiar in using at least one of those three personal computer operating systems. Let’s now compare this to the number of different info-tainment systems in the auto world and it becomes strikingly obvious why user satisfaction is not at its highest in this department: every automaker has a version of their own info-tainment system. Here’s the count (for simplicity, I will name the parent company of each automaker and we will assume that the subsidiaries use a version that’s the same or similar to the one used by the parent):
That’s eleven companies, not counting the various subsidiaries, that manufacture completely different info tainment units in their cars! Eleven! That’s at least elevendifferentGPS interfaces, audio and video head unit interfaces, communication configurations, and rear-seat entertainment systems that users will possibly have to learn how to use in their lifetime! Compare that to the much-smaller three operating systems that users will possibly use and the problem automobile manufacturers face is obvious: the more technologically-equipped a vehicle becomes, the greater the brand “switching” cost for the user. The user will need re-learn to use some if not all of the following if he or she decides to switch vehicle brands:
Head unit (radio, music controls)
Navigation system
Voice commands
Add on top of these learning costs the fact that most of these systems are very user-unfriendly and designed with the least amount of ease-of-use in mind (read: they are designed by engineers, not user-interface experts) and the info-tainment industry becomes a spot in the automotive landscape that’s desperately in need to innovation. But that’s enough and I will get off the soap box: now that I’ve identified the problem, I will explain what I think must be done to fix it.
All manufacturers need to adopt a unified electronic devices communication center. Such a center will handle all the external (3rd party) devices the user brings into the car: cellular phones, media players, usb sticks with music files, etc. Thus, this center will handle the car’s Bluetooth communications, central audio and video content, and integrate with the car’s navigation system (if, of course, one is installed). This system will use a unified set of voice commands to control the devices mentioned above, as well as provide voice access to the car’s standard utilities such as AC controls, overhead displays, and others.
So what will it take to develop such a “control center?” It already exists! And it’s called SYNC , and it’s by Microsoft. This is Microsoft’s first official push into the automobile territory.
Microsoft’s strategy is very appealing when one observes the different areas in which the company desires to be present: they already are on personal computers with Windows, on mobile phones with Windows Mobile, in the living room with their Media Center PCs, really in the game room with Xbox, on the web with Windows Live and their search properties (and the recent bid for Yahoo), in the data center (with Windows Server), and now – in the car – with SYNC! (Their world-domination strategy is looking pretty good right about now).
A little about SYNC and then some more on how it will need to be improved:
SYNC supports a variety of devices – from cell phones and personal media players to simple USB thumb drives and SD cards. It has an extensible architecture to support many brands of devices – not only those that run Microsoft software, and it is the best in-car communications and entertainment system for automobiles. It provides access to vehicle features in a hands-off (read: safe) fashion to the driver by using simple voice commands learned by the user. SYNC can even read text messages out loud and can interpret short-hand such as BRB, for “Be right back”. Here are some features of the SYNC system:
Voice-activated hands-free calling: allows the user to voice-dial any contact in their address book simply by pressing a button on the steering wheel and pronouncing the name
Uninterrupted connections: pushing a button on the steering wheel transfers the call from the handset to the car’s Bluetooth system, without having to redial
Audible text messages: the system reads text messages out loud to the user (as above)
Advanced calling features: the system displays the same information on the in-car dash/screen as the mobile phone, such as Caller ID, Call waiting, Conference calling, a caller log, a list of contacts, a signal strength icon, and a phone battery charge icon
Voice-activated music: allows the user to browse through their iPod, Zune, or memory stick music collection by genre, album, artist, or song title only by saying “play – Cyclone”. (Where Cyclone is the song name)
Simple voice recognition: the user does not need to learn scripted commands
Other features are listed on the Wikipedia page here.
The only problem is, it’s currently licensed only by Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury. Microsoft recently announced that it is ready to move past Ford and license SYNC to more automakers. Now it’s time for these automakers to integrate SYNC into their vehicles (besides sitting down and inking the deal with Microsoft).
Why is SYNC so great? SYNC unifies in-car communications and entertainment for users. And with it making its way across different automakers’ dash boards, drivers will no longer need to learn new ways to set up bluetooth to work with their phones, learn new voice commands, or take their eyes off the road to read a text message, make a phone call, or play a song. However SYNC lacks one component that still needs to be unified across vehicle marques: the navigation system.
Currently, navigation systems, just like communication systems before SYNC, range in user-interface and “look and feel” from manufacturer to manufacturer. While some brands use this as a marketing advantage (BMW iDrive, anyone?), they are actually more of a disservice and inconvenience. How is a navigation unit a “benefit” and more superior to other brands when manufacturers offer 3-hour long classes to teach new users to use their “value-added” nav systems? (As a comparison, first-time iPhone users don’t need such instruction and the iPhone, on a “per device basis”, does much more than a “predefined-functionality” GPS unit.) The point is that when drivers switch car brands they should not have to re-learn how to use the navigation system. This goes back to the personal computer situation: chances are, the user will only use one of three computer systems in their life: Windows, Mac, or (big “if” here) Linux. But the user faces a much greater chance of using (and thus having to learn) a completely different user interface for the car brand’s navigation system – a choice of eleven different brands at the very least.
These systems – made by or subcontracted by the auto manufacturers are often not user-friendly. I have a GPS unit in my 2006 “entry-luxury” vehicle from Lexus and it’s very unintuitive. The iPhone’s Maps application and even stand-alone GPS units by Garmin or TomTom are much easier to use and learn. Microsoft’s SYNC currently has tie-ins to the manufacturer’s custom-built nav systems, but If Microsoft were to bundle a nav system package into SYNC, they would:
Make it easier for drivers to switch brands and not be afraid of having to learn and entirely new navigation system interface
Carry over the look and feel of the navigation system user interface from car brand to car brand, similar to the PC market, and thereby would
Decrease the amount of “different” navigation operating systems in the market place
Decrease car manufacturers’ development costs for navigation systems and would allow the manufacturers to do what they do best: make safe, fun, attractive vehicles and would allow Microsoft to do what it does best: software development and user-interface design and implementation
Lower navigation system prices
The navigation interface that SYNC will provide will be a value-add that drivers will seek out and it will become a selling point on a vehicle. The basic system functionality and interface would carry over across different brands and Microsoft would move much faster than the auto makers in developing this system. After all, they are a software company at heart. This move into in-car nav systems won’t be a first for Microsoft: they already make a very good software package with Streets and Trips that can integrate with a GPS receiver unit.
P.S. A big factor in me writing this article is this “button-happy” interface (guess by who?)
(2008 Mercedes Benz E350 Luxury Sedan – Courtesy Mercedes Benz; artistic details: yours truly)
Now that I’ve covered navigation systems and in-vehicle device integration, I’d like to briefly mention rear-seat entertainment. Currently, rear-seat entertainment units consist of monitors attached to DVD players. The monitors can be fed content through other inputs – such as S-video, HDMI, and/or component/composit inputs. SYNC can’t really improve much in this area, but the SYNC system can offer one feature for the rear-seat occupants that I see is going to become the next best thing in cars since the automatic transmission and the airbag: in-car internet. In-car internet access can be configured from a technical standpoint in a few ways:
The vehicle can be sold with an in-car cellular data receiver (like a USB data card from major carriers). This card will provide access to the SYNC system, which will in-turn distribute this signal via Wi-Fi throughout the vehicle, giving passengers access. This is the most rudimentary way of providing internet access. The driver will pay monthly or yearly subscription fees, just as they do for cellular service today. Car manufacturers and cellular carriers can have a synergistic cross-promotional advertising affect here by offering promotions on certain brands of vehicles or certain carriers.
The driver’s cell phone, equipped with high-speed data service, will be the data receiver whose signal SYNC will distribute to the passengers via Wi-Fi, as in the above fashion.
In summary:
Current differentiation in in-vehicle info-tainment systems is too much to handle and learn for the driver, making brand switching “costs” too high in terms of re-learning
Microsoft’s SYNC is a very good approach to unify info-tainment in cars and should betaken further into in-vehicle navigation systems, unifying the user-interfaces of the systems and reducing vehicle “switching costs” while providing an overall better user experience and a faster, less expensive development cycle for manufacturers
This goes into the bin of “why in the world would they do that?” tags.News came today from Detroitnews.com that Ford never planned on building it’s stunning Interceptor concept car.To me this comes as a perfect plan to see Ford never recover from it’s current troubles.First things first: Ford needs to add some fun, excitement, and general “hotness” to its lineup that will attract non-traditional buyers.They’re in deep trouble right now, making turn-around plans.
Let’s go back two years to 2005, when GM was in a very similar position: sales were terrible, incentives were very high, and money was pouring out of the company like sand leaking from a hole in a truck bed.Such times call for a sit-down and careful product planning.In GM’s case, this planning is paying off: great product is being released (2008 Malibu, 2008 Caddy CTS) and they’ve just finished completely revitalizing Saturn – which has kick-ass products to be honest.Buick is up next for a similar retooling, and Cadillachas already been through such a retooling but is still in the process.The point is, after toiling and making correct decisions about the type of product and brand strategies the company is going to pursue, positive results are rolling in.Saturn sales are exponentially increasing, Cadillac is doing well, and the most important thing – new, well-designed, appealing product is showing up in showrooms.
Now let’s come back to the present at which time Ford execs are making strategic decisions about the Ford brands’ product portfolios for the next five to ten years – the same place where GM was two years ago.Ford – the vehicle company – needs hit products that will make customers consider the brand during purchases.While many factors go into consumers’ decisions about which car they purchase, Ford basically needs vehicles that bring some spotlight away from Toyota and onto it’s upcoming cars.Here comes in the Interceptor concept: a slab-sided four-door sedan (think Chrysler 300), built on the new Ford global rear-wheel drive platform (D2C), that looks like it will tear your dinner away from you and gulp it down in 1/2 a second.This would translate into a product that has the looks, the dimension, and the drivetrain to be a perfect full-size sedan in Ford’s line-up, if it were produced… but today Ford said that it never even planned on building the Interceptor.
Looks like Ford thinks that customers would prefer the styling of the Interceptor – since they will be “infusing it” into their future products…However, what good is the styling if the Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300 pair will just rip the styling off of the poor (insert name of future non-rwd-based Ford flagship sedan) and beat it with driving dynamics, handling, and RWD caché?This is another shot in the foot that Ford has so cleverly mastered to instrument (don’t even get me started on Volvo under Ford).Now besides all the lost sales in the large sedan segment, here is another reason why Ford should reconsider their decision and build the Interceptor as it was debuted:
-Economies of scale say that Ford share this platform with it’s upscale division: Lincoln – which has had the pleasure of keeping it’s 40-year old TownCar platform all to itself (and to the Crown Vic, to be fair).This very old platform that the TownCar is on needs replacement – and the new D2C RWD platform is the perfect candidate.Lincoln can get a retooled, upscale, version of the Interceptor as it’s midsize or even flagship sedan.Ford tried this in the 1990s but failed in the implementation: remember the Lincoln LS sedan?That was riding on a modified version of the Mustang.However, the LS suffered through many reliability issues and had a terrible interior – along with it’s platform cousin – the Jaguar S-type.
-Also, Ford Australia can use this platform for their next Falcon sedan and Ford U.S. can make a coupe Lincoln derived off this platform as well.
-Moreover, Ford can sell a Police version of the Interceptor to law enforcement – making it a great replacement for the Crown Vic.I see more Dodge Charger Police vehicles on the road now… Hey Ford!Do you think that’s because it’s on a vastly superior (and newer) platform than the 40-year-old Victoria?Hmmm.
Just one month after GM emerged from bankruptcy, the automaker has made some big news. We speculated about what the company will announce during today’s presentation by CEO Fritz Henderson as well as what’s behind the 230 marketing campaign. Turns out we were half right – here’s the scoop!
