Ad Shock: VW Shows Moviegoers What It's Like to Text and Drive

As reported by The Verge: 

It's well documented that texting while driving has become an increasing problem over the years. Advertising agency Ogilvy Beijing recently demonstrated exactly what can happen if you take your eyes off the road to look at your phone. Patrons at a movie theater in Hong Kong were shown a VW commercial as part of the pre-show trailer reel, depicting a car driving on a quiet road. Using a local broadcasting system, the agency sent out a mass text to everyone in the room during the commercial, causing those with mobiles to check their phones. While they glanced down, the on-screen car then careened off the road into the tree, before the ad hammered home its message, pointing out that "mobile use is now the leading cause of death behind the wheel."

While that stat isn't true everywhere, distracted driving is an issue across the globe; US government statistics suggest approximately 660,000 drivers are "using cell phones or manipulating electronic devices while driving" at any given time.

Google to Buy Near Real-Time Satellite Imaging Company Skybox Imaging for $500M

As reported by Time: Google is buying near real-time satellite imaging company Skybox Imaging for $500 million in cash, it announced Tuesday.

Google says Skybox, which claims to have built the world’s smallest high-resolution imaging satellite, will help Google improve its Maps product. “Skybox’s satellites will help keep Google Maps accurate with up-to-date imagery,” Google said in a press release announcing the deal. “Over time, we also hope that Skybox’s team and technology will be able to help improve Internet access and disaster relief — areas Google has long been interested in.”

The demonstration video below shows what Skybox’s satellites are capable of doing:

Google has made significant investments in aerial projects over the last year, from buying the drone company Titan Aerospace to experimenting with balloons to deliver Internet access in remote areas — it’s also possible that Google could use Skybox’s satellite technology to expand global Internet access as well.  

In a blog post of its own, Skybox said it was “thrilled” to be bought out by Google and make hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. “We have built an incredible team and empowered them to push the state­-of­-the-­art in imaging to new heights. The time is right to join a company who can challenge us to think even bigger and bolder, and who can support us in accelerating our ambitious vision,” the company wrote.

The terms of the deal are subject to approval from federal regulators in the U.S.

FCC Workshop on GPS Receivers Causes Concern in GNSS Community

As reported by Inside GNSS:  Leading navigation experts are worried an upcoming workshop on GPS receivers being organized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an attempt to initiate design mandates for user equipment that could potentially undermine the GNSS community.

“There is currently planned an FCC workshop that is going to, among other things, address certification and standards for receivers,” said Brad Parkinson, the acting chair of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board and a former chief of the NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office.

“I am aware that a number of manufacturers are quite panicked over this because of the possibility of some superposition of, in essence, how you design a receiver for GPS,” Parkinson added in comments at the advisory board’s meeting on Wednesday (June 4, 2014).

The “Workshop on GPS Protection and Receiver Performance” set for June 20 at FCC headquarters in Washington, D.C., will consider GNSS receiver performance capabilities in the presence of neighboring transmitters and “a comprehensive path forward to protect GPS operations from harmful interference, potentially including an industry-driven GPS device certification program and transition plan.”

The agency posted a notice of the GPS receiver workshop on June 2, less than three weeks before the event.

LightSquared Fallout?
The agency, which regulates the nongovernmental uses of radio frequencies, has raised the idea of receiver standards in the past, largely as a mechanism to squeeze more users into overcrowded radio spectrum. The FCC’s initial efforts regarding GPS receiver standards were revved up shortly after the agency was forced to withdraw its controversial conditional approval of a broadband network proposed by Virginia-based LightSquared.

Tests ordered by the agency after concerns from the GNSS industry over the likelihood of interference eventually proved that the LightSquared network would overload the RF front-ends of a vast range of GPS receiver types. The FCC-mandated the tests well after it had agreed to LightSquared’s requests for a more powerful terrestrial transmission network in confidential discussions with the firm and then attempted to move the proposal forward on what appeared to be an unusually tight schedule — damaging in the process its relationship with the GPS community.

The June meeting appears unlikely to narrow the rift.

“I was a little bit concerned with when I looked at the agenda for this workshop because NASA builds receivers for our specific mission requirements,” said Advisory Board Executive Director Jim Miller, who works for NASA, the board’s government sponsor. “FAA defines the criteria where the manufacturers build receivers for aviation-specific applications. And so I'm a little bit concerned that FCC would take it upon themselves to begin to dictate how receivers are built in the future when really, up to now, they have managed spectrum allocation and transmission.”


It remains unclear, however, that the FCC even has the power to impose standards, said GPS policy expert Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.

“Government-set standards are generally not done except for reasons of national security or public safety. So, certainly we can set standards for military receivers and set standards for certification in the public safety community — such as the aviation and maritime people. But the FCC currently does not have the authority to do receiver standards and, I think the greater point, I don't think they should have it.”

Shifting the Burden of Proof
Pace said the push for receiver standards is part of a larger effort to shift the responsibility for demonstrating non-interference to other RF systems from those transmitting to those receiving the signals in order to accommodate the demand for other communications in the band.

Certifications that will constrain innovation and standards that will shift interference burdens to receivers are not being considered in order to benefit GPS users or the community, said Pace. These changes are being weighed “in order to make room for other services, including mobile [communications].”


The statement of work at the FCC workshop alludes very heavily to economic benefit, said Parkinson, something that has long been difficult for the GPS industry to quantify — in part because GPS use is not easily tracked and in part because the fragmented GPS community does not have the resources for extensive research The Department of Commerce is only now planning to study the economic impact of embedding GPS into consumer devices.

Parkinson told the June 4 meeting of the board that he hopes GPS manufacturers will make their presence known at the meeting and in the debate over the issue.

“The concern is always that we start putting on constraints and then somehow damage ourselves,” Parkinson told the group. “For example, export controls — I think the greatest thing we did for the rubidium clock industry in Europe was not allowing them to buy any of ours. So, they had to go out and do their own. There are some elements of that in the constraints that one might put on a receiver in order to meet some brand-new bureaucratic idea of what ought to be. I hope manufacturers get involved, get heavily involved, and express their opinion.”

This is “something that could vastly affect the whole substance of what we are if carried to the point that someone dictates how you design a receiver,” he said. “I think that's kind of dangerous.”

Tesla May Share Its Supercharger Patents

As reported by Business Insider: Elon Musk has said repeatedly he wants to “do something controversial” with Tesla's collection of electric car patents, but he finally offered specifics at the UK launch of his Tesla Model S on Sunday.  

The Tesla Motors CEO said he would like to open up the designs for his Supercharger systems — the free fast-charging stations designed to quickly refuel Tesla’s electric cars — to create a standard for other car makers to use.

Musk has previously said he didn't want Superchargers to become a “walled garden.” The only way to guarantee that from happening is to help electric car makers integrate their own designs with Tesla’s proven configuration.

We’ve reached out to Tesla Motors for comment. We’ll update this story as soon as we learn more.

If Musk indeed shares the blueprints for his Superchargers with the greater community, it wouldn’t be the first time the PayPal founder has given away an idea to spur interest and development of a new technology.

Last August, Musk shared his proposal for the “Hyperloop,” a high-speed form of solar-powered air travel that would allow commuters to travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 30 minutes, or between New York and Los Angeles in under an hour.

Like the Hyperloop proposal, it’s possible Musk wants to involve third parties so they can help subsidize costs related to the manufacturing and maintenance of the Supercharger infrastructure. Tesla has been had at work to expand the Supercharger network in the U.S., but the company is still expanding to other countries.

Tesla’s rivals may not be as successful, but all electric car makers would benefit from a universal charging standard — and, should that happen, more charging stations.

Tesla’s all-electric Model S sedan, which was released in mid-2012, has received numerous awards, including Motor Trend’s 2013 “Car Of The Year.” It was also the only car to ever receive a 99 out of 10 from Consumer Reports, which called the Model S a “technological tour de force … brimming with innovation.”

The Model S starts at $63,570 and ranges up to $115,770 for the works. Tesla said it sold 22,500 vehicles last year and is on track to sell about 35,000 in 2014.

iOS 8 Obfuscates Data Related to WiFi Location Tracking

As reported by The Verge: It wasn't touted onstage, but a new iOS 8 feature is set to cause havoc for location trackers, and score a major win for privacy. As spotted by Frederic Jacobs, the changes have to do with the MAC address used to identify devices within networks. When iOS 8 devices look for a connection, they randomize that address, effectively disguising any trace of the real device until it decides to connect to a network.

Why are iPhones checking out Wi-Fi networks in disguise? Because there's an entire industry devoted to tracking customers through that signal. As The New York Times reported last summer, shops from Nordstrom's to JC Penney have tried out the system. (London even tried out a system using public trash cans.) The system automatically logs any phone within Wi-Fi range, giving stores a complete record of who walked into the shop and when. But any phone using iOS 8 will be invisible to the process, potentially calling the whole system into question.



Combined with inventory and in-store video, the records are immensely valuable to stores as marketing data, and companies like Euclid Analytics and Path Intelligence have made an industry out of providing them. But now that Apple has embraced MAC spoofing, the practice of Wi-Fi sniffing may stop working entirely. With more than one in three US smartphones running iOS, and a notoriously fast adoption cycle for new operating systems, any data collected is likely to leave out a huge sector of the population.

The result is a privacy win for Apple users and a major blow against data marketing — and all it took was an automatic update.

Drivers Want Access to a Limited Number of Apps in Their Cars

As reported by Computerworld: Drivers are tiring of automakers embedding apps into their cars, the main complaint being that they only want essential apps that work as well as the ones on their smartphones, according to new research.

The research, presented by automotive market research firm SBD, was buttressed by the views of people in a focus group involving 46 people, six of whom participated in a panel at the Telematics Detroit conference here this week.

The focus group, identified by first name only, overwhelmingly chose two functions that they wanted in a car's infotainment system -- navigation and music. Everything else was seen as either a convenience or a dangerous distraction.

The Tesla infotainment system was popular among test users in a focus group at Telematics Detroit.
(Photo: Lucas Mearian/Computerworld)

Each driver was given an hour to experiment with six car infotainment systems from each of the leading car manufacturers plus Tesla Motors, the electric car maker.
"Music and where am I going. Everything else is about driving. Safety... that's what I'm most concerned with," said Megan, one of the panelists. "All this other stuff seams OK, but it's very distracting."

Having Google Search embedded in a car topped the list of features the drivers said they wanted because it was fast, intuitive and worked every time.

"There's just so many things you can do with it," said Neal, another panelist. "The information is instant. There's no lag time. And, it saves so much time."

Neal said he likes using Google Search and navigation on his smartphone rather than on his car's telematics system because the car always takes longer to find a location and often offers 10 or more search results that aren't related to the desired destination.

The second most popular app among the drivers on the panel was Pandora, the Internet radio and music streaming service. Most complained that the SiriusXM satellite radio service offered with new cars has stations with repetitive music playlists. Pandora, on the other hand, learns a user's preferences or allows them to be customized while still offering an endless variety of music, the drivers said.


"Does Pandora run for free in cars?" Neal asked. "I'd love to have Pandora, but I don't want to pay a premium to have it stream into the car. I have a phone I can use for that."

Andrew Hart, head of advanced research at SBD, said automakers choose the wrong apps to embed in their cars because, in the rush to catch up with smartphones and tablets, they forget about usability and responsiveness.

Today, there are 173 apps developed by automotive manufacturers that have been embedded in cars in the U.S., according to Hart.

The SBD focus group was made up of 46 U.S. drivers who'd purchased a car in the past year. The divers were split into two groups and asked to try infotainment systems in three premium cars and four mass consumer cars.

In the premium group was the Mercedes-Benz S-Class Command Infotainment system, the Porsche PCM infotainment system and the Tesla Model S infotainment system, which is based on the Linux OS.

In the mass consumer group of vehicles was the Dodge Ram 1500's Uconnect infotainment system, the Nissan Altima's NissanConnect infotainment system, and the Honda Civic's HondaLink (Next Generation) infotainment system.

The focus group was asked to complete three tasks: Find a radio station, navigate home, and find a pizza shop.

Only 40% were able to complete the simple tasks on the infotainment systems. The remaining 60% "got lost while navigating through the maze of different features," according to SBD.

Hart said the study revealed there are four categories of car infotainment systems. They are: Systems that provide both embedded and mobile apps; systems with apps that typically don't work well or fast enough to be used by drivers; systems with apps that are difficult to use; and systems with apps that distract and create safety issues.

The NissanConnect infotainment system (Photo: Nissan)

"As an industry, we're striving to develop Swiss Army knives instead of the spoons our customers want," Hart said. 

Even car dealers struggle to explain to new car owners how infotainment systems work, according to Hart. "There are too many complexities," he said. "And if we can't educate the dealers, we definitely can't educate the consumer."

Tesla, which used a Linux-based operating system for its infotainment system, ranked high in terms of usability among drivers.

Those on the user panel said the Tesla infotainment system was the easiest and "most intuitive" to use.

"We were very enamored with the Tesla. Not being tech-savvy, I found the icons were huge and easy to use while driving and while parked," said Tina, another focus group member. "It was a fascinating system to me, and I'd seek that one out [as a car buyer]."

The panel of drivers had mixed feelings about the idea of Wi-Fi in a car. Some said they would like to be able to work from their cars or stream live entertainment for passengers, while others said that being connected 24 hours a day wasn't necessary.  

The focus group also had mixed feelings about in-car infotainment platforms that allow drivers to sync or pair their smartphones. Some liked the idea of having the most up-to-date technology and apps available through onboard telematics, while others said it pigeonholed them.

Ford Motor Co., the first manufacturer to offer in-car apps via drivers' smartphones, with its SYNC AppLink technology, has a system that allows drivers to download apps from the iTunes App Store, Google Play or BlackBerry App World into the car's head unit.

AppLink started out with a few radio and location-based services, but Ford has expanded it to include dozens of such services. Earlier this year, Ford announced four more integrations: Parkopedia, a parking space finder; Parkmobile, an app that allows drivers to use their smartphones to pay for parking; Pulse, an ADT security app; and an app for ordering from Domino's Pizza.

MirrorLink, a service that provides connectivity between a smartphone and a car's infotainment system, is also being adopted by many auto manufacturers. Additionally, Apple's CarPlay and Google's Automotive Link allow pairing of smartphones with car infotainment systems.  

"I like that idea," said Neal. "You're personalizing it. My phone will always be as up to date as possible."

Neal said he had recently downloaded an app called 'Find My Car' that can locate his parked vehicle using GPS technology. "There are so many features on your phone that you can't build into a car," Neal added.

However, some people in the focus group noted that smartphones can be lost, leaving a driver without a navigation system. They said cars should always have an embedded app for navigation.

Moreover, people tend to replace their smartphones every two years or so, and when you get a new phone you may have to completely reconfigure your infotainment system in order to use the new apps.

"To me, [Apple's] iOS 7 is not as good as the last iOS, so that lowered my confidence in how well the software is working," Mark said. "If iOS 8 is as bad as iOS 7, I may want to migrate to Android. Then you have to migrate your car to Android."

Lazy, Overconfident Humans Shaped Google’s New Autonomous Car

As reported by MIT Technology Review: The fact that Google’s bubble-like self-driving car, unveiled this week, lacks a steering wheel might be seen as evidence the company’s software is close to mastering the challenges of piloting a vehicle. But the car’s design is just as much a consequence of what Google’s existing fleet of automated Lexus SUVs revealed about human laziness.

Google’s engineers had been focused on perfecting how well those modified cars could handle freeway driving, and they imagined their technology hitting the market in a way that left humans sharing driving duties with their vehicle. “The idea was that the human drives onto the freeway, engages the system, [and] it takes them on the bulk of the trip—the boring part—and then they reëngage,” said Nathaniel Fairfield, a technical lead on the project, speaking at the Embedded Vision Summit in Santa Clara, California, on Thursday.

That approach had to be scrapped after tests showed that human drivers weren't trustworthy enough to be co-pilots to Google’s software. When people began riding in one of the vehicles, they paid close attention to what the car was doing and to activity on the road around them, which meant the hand-off between person and machine was smooth. But that interest faded to indifference over weeks and months as people became too trusting of the car’s abilities. “Humans are lazy,” says Fairfield. “People go from plausible suspicion to way overconfidence.”

That convinced Google it had to give up on switching between human and machine control, says Fairfield. That also ruled out building on top of conventional car designs, because they assume a human is on hand and ready to take over in the event of an emergency.  

“If the car detects there’s something wrong with the power steering, it cuts it out and trusts you,” said Fairfield. “Same with [power-assisted] brakes—they go limp but you can still stop the vehicle.” Google’s tests suggest that anyone accustomed to a self-driving car would be unlikely to be ready take over in the event of such a failure.

And so Google’s new vehicle design takes a leaf out of NASA’s design book to cope with such eventualities. “It doesn't have a fallback to human—it has redundant systems,” said Fairfield. “It has two steering motors, and we have various ways we can bring it to a stop.”

The car is powered by an electric motor roughly equivalent to that used in the Fiat 500e and has a range of around 100 miles. Its maximum speed is 25 miles per hour to reduce the severity of injuries to pedestrians in the event of a crash, says Fairfield. The front of the vehicle is made of plastic material intended to cushion any impact with a human. Google says it intends to build up a fleet of 100 of the vehicles for testing this summer. However, existing laws mean that only versions that have had conventional controls installed can be tested on public roads.

Fairfield says that the decision to make a purely autonomous vehicle also had the benefit of bringing Google more in line with the company’s original vision of something that could “drive everywhere for everybody.” That more strongly differentiates Google’s approach to automated vehicles from those of conventional automakers, who have pledged to keep humans in ultimate control of their vehicles (see “Driverless Cars Are Further Away Than You Think”).

However, Google’s new focus sets it on a more difficult path to getting its technology into commercial production. The company previously decided to focus on freeway driving because it is a relatively manageable task for software to take on. The new vehicle will have to cope with the much more challenging conditions on urban roads.