So, last time we were thinking through the evolutionary path that TomTom might take now that it owns TeleAtlas. We concluded that TomTom is on the road to becoming a content company, rather than a device company, but that there appears to be an interesting fork in the road ahead.

Content publishing and map database publishing are very similar. You need to collect information, compile it, verify the facts and then publish/distribute the “product”. Completing this cycle in a profitable manner requires managing your costs across the production spectrum. We think this is the road that TomTom is taking and at present, it appears that the company is focusing on the collection and distribution aspects of the process.

Let’s look at the collection process

We all know that TomTom is a big proponent of UGC (See this blog or search for UGC using the Category menu on the left) and that the company would like to find more ways to leverage its MapShare software, to help collect and assist in the compilation of road data. For example, in its recent press release on its new deal with Google, TeleAtlas announced that the agreement provided the company access to the edits of its maps from Google’s community of users.

We could view the data pool that is used to compile TA maps as having two main feeder pipes, each with a variety of inputs. Let’s label one pipe “TeleAtlas” and the other “UGC” (User Generated Content). The TeleAtlas crew collects data by soliciting it from authorities (city, state, national) and uses the data from these sources as a compilation asset. In addition, TeleAtlas utilizes field crews and instrumented vans to collect road and road-related information in the real world. To date, these “TeleAtlas” collection methods have been the mainstay of the databases they produce. The inputs go through a variety of validation processes, some automated, some not, before the data is pronounced fit for use.

There is now a second input pipe to the data input pool made possible by harnessing User Generated Content. As of last February, TomTom claimed, in a press release, that it had received one million map improvements through MapShare and that the MapShare community had over half a million members registered users. Clearly, all of these changes will be supplied to TA, for its use. In addition, TeleAtlas will be able to utilize the changes to its base maps made by Google users, as a second source of UGC. How will these data be verified and will either of these sources materially benefit TomTom/TeleAtlas?

The significant problem in collecting spatial data, is not finding a source of information about roads or navigation attributes, although this is sometimes an onerous task. Rather, the challenge is validating the positional and thematic aspects of the information collected. For example, the “change” data that TA will be provided by Google is unverified. We do not know if the user acted in good faith, or even if the change they made was for the correct location. Although Google has indicated that it uses a variety of techniques to determine “outliers” to identify incorrect or bogus edits, it can be difficult to check the integrity of spatial data without verifying it in the field. In essence, TA will receive a report that says, for example, this address has been moved from here to there. Yes, they will get the coordinates, but the moves of addresses are often based on the user seeing the location on satellite imagery and then changing the location on the map. Source mismatches, anyone?

The field generated aspect of UGC, such as that collected by MapShare (i.e. the correction is tied to a coordinates provided by the onboard GPS) seems to be a more fertile source of corrections that might be spatially accurate. Of course, there is nothing in the MapShare software that will identify errors in the thematic portion of the potential edit. For example, when TA receives the MapShare data, it should know “where” the user meant to alter the data, but not if the information related to the coordinate(s) was correct. In other words, the MapShare data might be a potentially effective pointer guiding TA to locations where the TA database needs improvement, but MapShare will not relieve TA of the burden of checking these facts for themselves. If TA already spends a whole lot of money on map updating, will it spend less when it has to sort through tons of UGC while attempting verify these data? I think the answer is “Yes”, but only if it (or TomTom) can figure out how to harness the potential of UGC, while not drowning in its data volumes.

Conversely, the MapShare information might provide a very slick way of capturing geocoded addresses and thematic data for new businesses and “hot-spots” for particular demographic groups.

The real gold in UGC, however, may lie in tracing the paths (devices or cars as probes) of users while they are driving. How TomTom might do that to advantage TA is something that we will write about next time. The use of traces, while complicated by itself, is part of a larger strategy that ties to product distribution and channels. We will write about that next time as well.

[Editor’s Note: We have implemented an anti-spam method to cull the spam comments from valid comments made using our Comment form. The Comment screen, in addition to the id info, now requires you to answer a simple question, based on a string of words that we present to you. We apologize for making you jump through an extra hoop, but the spammers are killing us. Before we implemented the procedure, we were receiving 400 spam/comments a day – and none of it remotely interesting.]

Well, TomTom now owns the object of its affection. The time for presenting the advantages of the deal or licking the financial wound inflicted by Garmin is over. The focus now is to implement TomTom’s acquisition strategy. What do you suppose that might be?

First, TomTom made a move in the right direction by replacing some of the TeleAtlas management team. Whether the new “chief” has all of the right skills is unclear, but the main “MapoMatic” just needs to execute the TomTom strategy for TA. Lest you think I am too sarcastic, the execution issues of importance here have little to do with knowing the ins and outs of map databases and a lot to do with business acumen and executing market strategy.

My belief is that TomTom’s management did not move far enough into changing the TA hierarchy, but it is unlikely that they want to lose too much “corporate memory” this early in the game. Of course, you don’t have to examine the TA financials to realize that you need to do something soon to improve profitability and help lighten that burdensome and potentially destabilizing debt load resulting from the acquisition.

Ah, but back to the kind of strategy of interest today. The core post-acquisition issue is “What does TomTom want to be when it grows up?” Buying TA was a strategy for getting somewhere else. Where might that be? How should we think about this conundrum?

Well, let’s look at the PND industry. I suspect PNDs have several more good years ahead of them and perhaps a modest future as an “on board-in dash” platform modestly integrated with the car.

There seems to be little doubt that the development of navigation in the future will be as an adjunct to search and advertising over cellular networks. This will be the next big thing for the mapping world. In essence, the rise of smart phone navigation will weaken the demand and alter the market for PNDs. While smart phones will not replace PNDs, they will reduce the profitability and growth prospects of this segment of the navigation market, just as they will diminish the market for in-dash navigation systems.

If the navigation market moves towards cellular, then the winners in the future could be Internet search providers (Google, MSN, Yahoo, Nokia (yes Nokia), Internet advertising providers (Google, MSN, Nokia (yes, Nokia) , cellular network operators (Orange, T-Mobile, Verizon), application service providers (Networks in Motion, Telnav, Telmap, etc), content providers (INFOusa and more traditional publishers etc) and cell phone manufacturers (Nokia, Samsung, LG, etc).

Faced with this dilemma, what should TomTom do? It would seem that the company should attempt to become a force in one or more of the categories listed above. I suspect TomTom wants to achieve two goals. First, it will attempt to morph into being a content provider of map databases, traffic information, points of interest, directory information, travel information (attractions, etc) and any other type of content that would be of advantage to mobile users (information that can be converted to a subscription basis. Yes, the combined entity of TomTom/TeleAtlas does publish some of these data today, but it will be focused on becoming a premier provider of subscription-based content in the future.

Providing content, however, is always difficult to do without a distribution medium. Let’s take TeleAtlas as an example. TA was unable to turn even a modest profit until TomTom became such a success that it became the main distribution channel for TeleAtlas databases. (In part, this model fits Navteq less well, since its distribution channel initially was automobile manufacturers and more recently those combined with TomTom’s PND competitors – but more about Navteq in a future blog). If the value of a “captive” distribution channel is real (i.e. demonstrable), where is TomTom’s future distribution channel?

Guess the answer is that TomTom will continue to be the TomTom and TeleAtlas distribution channel. TomTom wants to be Nokia but it does not have the financial assets to compete. Instead, it will start thinking like a network operator – you know, muttering about ARPU (average revenue per user), route traces, subscription services and becoming an MVNO (mobile virtual network operator). Hmm, this is kind of interesting.

Let’s think more about it next time. Be ready to explore the concept of routes provided on a subscription basis to a thin client – you know, like a mobile phone, like search on a mobile phone. Conversely, how about the back channel? You know, sending route traces back to TomTom to improve the accuracy and timeliness of map data collection. Hmmm. MapShare grows up?

The blog below is a rant about TomTom’s customer service. Those looking for something informative should wait for my thoughts aboutTomTom’s strategy in the post TeleAtlas acquisition world, which I will publish early next week ( I had forgotten that this Friday is the 4th and doubt that anyone will be around to read blogs, so I have delayed the article.) If you want a horror story and a few laughs read on - especially if you are a TomTom Shareholder.

TomTom is banking a lot on User Generated Comment. Their MapShare program is one of the industry’s best. It operates on the company’s latest PNDs and connects proposed changes with the “mother ship” through the TomTom Home application that resides on your PC. This ill-thought out piece of software also manages your updates and other functions, atlhough as you will see below is does this very poorly. I am amused that TomTom wants my UGC map updates - but does not want to talk to me about their product and their clumsy attempts at customer service. So, on to my blog - for a some user generated content that is not the type TomTom was hoping for.

Ahhh…the trials and tribulations of being the owner of a TomTom PND. I know I have written about this issue before, but the company seems determined to irritate its customers until they give in and buy a ….Garmin, I suppose. It is hard to imagine customer service being any worse than that recently offered by TomTom, but I suppose it is possible.

My latest round with TomTom began with my requesting an update to the map databases on my TomTom 920. I was attracted to the 920 because it comes equipped with a database of North America and a database of Europe, both loaded into the flash memory resident in the unit. Yep, there on the bottom of the 920 is a tape over the SD slot, on which the following is printed, “No SD required”. The only comment in the 920 Manual about the SD card is a diagram pointing to the SD card slot marked with this text “Memory card slot (SD card not included) for optional additional maps.” (my emphasis) So, I guess one could conclude that the two map databases supplied with the original device are not optional. In other words, I paid a premium for the 920 because both databases ran on the internal flash and I would not need to buy or use an SD card unless I desired to add something to the device that was not an original feature.

In addition, when I purchased the device late last year, it came with a marketing blurb telling me “With the TomTom Go 920, you are entitled to download all the new map releases for one year at no charge.” The document continued that I could visit the TomTom website to find out how to claim this offer.

Silly me, I tried it. I entered the special URL and when I arrived at the correct landing page, I entered the redemption code printed on the marketing blurb mentioned above. Ooops, the code was not valid. I entered it repeatedly and the code simply was not accepted, even though what I entered was identical to the code on the card.

Well, another visit to TomTom Customer Service. I called, sat in a short queue and was greeted by someone who was going to provide me excellent service today. Well, it turns out you cannot use the code supplied by TomTom. I was told that some units had been stolen and that they did not want to provide maps to the thieves. I told the person that I was not a thief and that I had bought my TomTom at Costco and doubted that they had stolen it. Well, to resolve their confusion and lack of inventory tracking capabilities, I needed to send TomTom my purchase receipt or I would not be seeing any updates. I told them that the materials in the box of the PND purchased did not mention this requirement and that it was illegal for TomTom to impose a requirement beyond that provided with the original equipment at time of purchase.

At the time, I did nothing about this because I was not sure where I had placed my purchase receipt. And anyway there were no new maps to download! Of course, that changed recently and I decided I had better dig up the receipt and get my new databases. So I searched for a while, found the receipt and sent it in. In turn, TomTom placed the US database in my update queue.

I guess they must be serving these updates from an I-Phone over the AT&T network, since it took two hours to download. Can you guess what happened next? Yes, there was not enough room in the unit’s internal flash memory to install the new database. As usual, TomTom’s crack engineering team must not have been able to figure out a way to estimate that space on the machine before the download – or a way to allow the download to go to the hard disk on my computer in case there were problems with the download to the PND.

Back to customer service, again. Copy the old database from the PND to my computer, erase it from the flash in the 920, delete some voices and “voila”, after another two hours I had a new US database. Great. What about the new version of the European database?

Back to customer service, again. Ok, they agreed they owed me Europe and would put it in my account for download. Great! Another two hours of download passed by and then the message that the database of Europe WOULD NOT FIT on the 920!

Back to customer service, again. I am sorry to be harsh, but this time I spoke with another pro who was going to provide excellent service, although I was worried that this one might not know how their zipper worked. I was told by this person that the remnants of the previous databases were still on the PND and I would have to erase both the North American and Europe databases from my PND, download a software tool to clear the flash and start all over again. That would mean 2 hours downloading each database and even then it might not work. However, I figured either this was good Blog material or I was having a bad dream. Ever the good TomTomette, I erased the databases and then looked for the legendary flash tool at the URL I had been supplied. Wasn’t there!

Back to customer service, again. The new CSR had another story. Due to the sizes of the new databases both the US and Europe would no longer fit on the 920. It did not have enough flash memory. What I needed to do, I was told, was to buy an SD card!

Well, we went to Defcon 5 in a matter of seconds. In my opinion, a thermonuclear strike on TomTom Customer Service would possibly win me the Nobel Peace Prize – Just think of the heartbreak I could avoid for other customers.

However, I do not allow nukes in the office, so I attempted to reason with my protagonist. I stated in very simple terms that the 920 PND was sold with the representation that it came with current databases of both North America and Europe running in flash. Upon opening the box, I was supplied with a document providing me access to updated map databases and reasonably assumed that these databases would fit on the 920 since the two databases was a feature used by TomTom to describe and market the 920. Simply put, neither of the databases was “optional” on this device. The 920 carries a sticker over the SD card slot saying, “No SD card required”. It was not my fault that TomTom engineers had underscoped the 920 for future database footprints. I concluded that TomTom should either replace my 920 with an extended memory version or send me an SD card. So, we escalated to a supervisor.

It is always satisfying to be escalated to a supervisor, since you know they do not know any of the technical details and they are going to try to spend their time telling you nothing of interest. It’s sort of like adding extra cheese to a four-cheese pizza – nothing is gained from the action except indigestion!

Even when you ask supervisors a question, you get an “I”ll note that…” in reply. He didn’t even have a response when I told him that they needed to work on their CSR training since the first CSR had put me through techno-hell because the person did not know that both databases would not fit on the 920.

Realizing that supervisor was a do-nothing doorstop, I asked to be escalated to their Legal Department since I was asserting that TomTom had breached their contract with me. I was given a “ticket” and told I could expect to hear from them in a day or two. Well that time has come and gone. Guess their legal department is trained by customer service.

So let’s conclude. TomTom apparently does not know that road database grow larger over time. I guess they will find several strategic surprises now that they own TeleAtlas. Can you imagine – “Yes, update the database but it can’t be any larger than the current one” and “Can’t you drop some of the streets people don’t use?”

Or “Let’s build a PND that can fit both the North American and European databases, but be sure not to put in any extra flash to allow for database expansion. After all, planned obsolescence is how we sell so many units.” Maybe not in the future!

Goodbye TomTom – Hello some reputable brand.

This is the third and final exploration prompted by Richard Water’s article in the Financial Times titled “Way to go? Mapping looks to be web’s next big thing”. The article can be found here.

More about the market

While all of the examples in the Waters’ article are interesting, the author seems to miss the prime mover in this historic development. Companies developing 3D technologies are looking for the spatial cues that will allow them to do something better than their competitors. While “mapping for the masses” is a laudable goal, that is not why any of these companies are interested in the technology. Interest in 3D data, spatial or otherwise) is based on financial goals. All companies in this space are looking for ways to generate enhanced profits using 3D data.

I think it likely that the mobile Internet is the next big market – for advertising! Google and the other players are not creating 3D-data for any reason other than it provides a realistic spatial context around potential buyers of the products and services presented in their ads. From the perspective of companies in the advertising business (i.e. Google, Microsoft, etc.), 3D data allows them to target the user for ads that are not only contextually relevant but also spatially cued (geotargeting).

When the user’s search environment evolves into a mobile, 3D paradigm, their actions at the interface will provide more contextual cues about their interest than are available today in the online environment. The spatial aspects of the 3D-data will allow presenting ads about relevant topics in the location where the user is at that point in time and possibly, about where they will travel next. Mining the web logs that accompany the trails that a person commonly travels will become a profit vortex that just keeps sucking those dollars in.

The mobile Internet’s ad distribution networks (Google’s or Nokia’s – because that is where Nokia is going)) trump the wired Internet, because they can present advertising opportunities while the user is on their way to a destination. If you use Local Search to select a category of stores while on the wired Internet, it is because he or she intends to travel there sometime. The Mobile Internet allows you to search for an item when you need it! Place and context based search in real time -now that gets me excited about advertising!

Perhaps Mr. Jorgensen’s (Microsoft) quotes in the Waters’ article have been edited or he was being coy about the promise of the mobile Internet. Let’s take location capable handsets as a given. The “awareness” is added by connectivity to the Internet and its storehouse of geographical databases. The phone, in addition to its communication and display capabilities, needs to be improved in its role as a “remote sensing” device. It should become a location tool in which pointing the phone in a direction, interrogates that location and returns information about what it is, what it offers and how to get there (this capability has been patented and is now being rolled out on phones in Japan). Further, the phone’s operating system needs to be customizable so that the user can shape their phone to search only for the things of interest to them and day-part these activities to reflect the complexity of their life (business, personal, medical, recreational.)

For many such as Microsoft and Google, creating a more detailed world allows them to offer advertisers a more specifically geotargeted audience. Consider this concept – most of use travel through our neighborhoods and local shopping areas using the “ribbon” approach. We know the main streets and a few local streets and use them to navigate our local geography. Most of us do not know what it between the roads we use or what types of stores are areas that we cannot see from the street when we are driving. When we travel in new areas, the problem is even greater. Since we know (act on) only the opportunities that we can see.

Enabling Local Search lets me know things around me and enabling 3D-Local Search lets me “see” the things around me that are not visible from my car. Now, if I place filters on this process, I can see only those things of interest to me that are near me. Wow, what better advertising target than this?

However, it seems to me that the opportunity is much bigger than just advertising. Accurate 3D spatial data for instance, allows me not only to show the environment with its correct position and elevation (so those advertisers can deliver me right to the storefront), it allows me to use these data in a M2M (machine to machine) environment to perform a number of types of analysis that would benefit me as a user (e.g. to navigate my car, provide curve speed warning, adjust my car’s fuel economy, etc.). In other words, the real benefit of 3D data comes not from just seeing it, but using it in analytical ways that enhance other aspects of my life than just “finding”.

I think that the use of personal analytics to “know” the environment surrounding us will be the next big thing on the Internet, in wireless, in navigation and in all of the advertising that will accompany these revolutions.

Later this week I will become a soothsayer and author a blog on TomTom’s strategy now that the TeleAtlas deal has been finalized. After that I will do the same for Nokia and Navteq. Before either, however, I will write a brief expose on my latest battle with TomTom Customer Service over my TomTom 920 database updates. Yep, they better get out of the PND business - or at least figure out how to provide customer support, customer service and consistent product positioning.

Today I would like to continue an exploration prompted by Richard Water’s article in the Financial Times titled “Way to go? Mapping looks to be web’s next big thing”. The article can be found here.

It is clear to me that the public’s potential fascination with 3D-egocentric data (what does the world look like around me?) will drive the future growth of many companies that collect data for purposes of spatial analysis in its various guises. What seems to be lacking in the reporter’s brief overview is some attention to “non-finding”, analytic uses of the 3D-data to answer more complicated questions about the environment, that is questions not only dealing with my location, but how I can interact with it. I think it is the more analytic questions that will generate significant consumer interest. For example, the use of a 3D-roads database, like that being generated by Intermap, to answer the question “How can I get to a destination using the least gasoline?”

In the Water’s article, Eric Jorgensen of Microsoft is quoted as saying that Microsoft is building a “digital representation of the globe to a high degree of accuracy” that will bring about “a change in how you think about the internet”. He adds, “We’re very much betting on a paradigm shift. We believe it will be a way that people can socialise, shop and share information.”

I think Erik Jorgensen is right but he misses an important issue. The 3D revolution is not going to change how we think about the Internet, it is going to change how we think about geographical data and how we use the Internet to develop new Map-Like-Objects (MLOs*) and new functionalities to explicate our place in that environment. Although not all the applications and functionalities for these data are yet clear, it is obvious that the race is on to build the best 3D-representation of the world in which we live.

While there is a fascination today with “building footprints” and architectural facades (part of answering the “finding” questions), I believe that there will soon be an equally important market in providing more accurate horizontal and vertical elevations. These data will help us to correctly position other 3-D data for “finding”, but more importantly for personal analytics – a field that languishes today because Navteq and TeleAtlas data quality does not appear to provide a base for these more advanced spatial applications.

During my review of the Waters article it occurred to me that one of the issues of importance in this discussion is that the Internet is the great equalizer. Mapping was limited for centuries because not many people knew how to do it (only cartographers) and the data was too expensive to distribute on a wide-scale (paper maps). Later, GIS generated the need for spatial data and GIS developers began to incorporate mapping techniques into the software, freeing spatial analysts of the need to understand the details of mapping, while reducing the distribution cost (software and networking). Just as the GIS revolution freed the masses, so to does Internet mapping free even more people to use spatial data and MLOs, while not requiring them to know anything about how it works. 3D-spatial data will create even greater popularity. I suspect the user will think, “This map stuff looks just like…reality and I already know how to use that!

Later in his article, Water’s opines that the company the controls the map interface on the Internet could one day own something “…as prevalent and powerful as Google’s simple search box.”
Gosh, I am getting to be a real nitpicker here! No one is going to control the interface to MLOs on the Internet. The more interesting issue is “who can produce the data that is needed to feed the 3D- oriented spatial functionality used on the Internet today and tomorrow?” Clearly, Nokia’s interest in Navteq and TomTom’s interest in TeleAtlas is driven by their realization that it is the data and not the interface that drives the application. In addition, the robustness of the data is a limiting factor in the effectiveness of the application.

One issue that seems to elude the Waters and, perhaps several of the Internet companies involved in the 3D Arms Race, is that many of the data types and elements being collected are not static. Collecting data that mutates over time is a difficult task. Both TeleAtlas and Navteq have trouble updating the roads they now map and will have even greater problems if they need to re-map these data at higher levels of horizontal and positional accuracy. In addition, there is the issue of keeping up-to-date all the data that will be layered on top of the base date. Who will update these data? Who will be able to afford the cost?

One of the answers to the updating problem (and one that Mike Liebhold who is quoted in the article believes in) is User Generated Content – similar to TomTom’s MapShare. As you know from my blogs, I think there is a significant role for UGC in the collection of some data – new streets and roads, name changes, address changes, POI changes, etc – but the accuracy and currentness requirements for some data types, especially 3D spatial data) will continue to be the province of the commercial data collection organizations (e.g. precise elevations and horizontal positions).

Next time, let’s think about the market for 3D Spatial Data and conclude our exploration of the Waters’ article.

* MLOs is a term introduced to me by Barbara Bartz Pechenik during one of our lunches at Gordon in Chicago a number of years ago. We (both me and the profession) miss you Barbara!

A few weeks ago, Richard Waters published an article in the Financial Times titled “Way to go? Mapping looks to be web’s next big thing”. The article can be found here.

The article started with a reprise of the acquisitions of TeleAtlas and Navteq and then focused on what various pundits have called the “3D data arms race”. Although there was little information in the article that was new from the practitioner’s point of view, the article does provide a valuable overview of the some of the developments in the 3D-mapping space. Although the article’s author did not admit it, the orientation of the article and most of the sources quoted were the same people who discussed this topic during a panel discussion at Where2.0 in 2007.

Waters apparently feels that many people have only recently discovered “the usefulness” of the map as a means of conveying “finding” information. In essence, the examples presented by Water in the remainder of his article are uses of online maps to provide information about location, particularly information that is currently surrounding the user (near-casting) or that will surround the user during his or her journey at some future point in time (far-casting - e.g. for this evening’s date or tomorrow’s business meeting).

The author seems unclear of the importance of geographical databases (including those with true 3-D data) and the use of GIS tools to analyze them. Geographical data compiled as an intelligent, topologically structured database are capable of storing significant amounts of information tagged by location and other defining attributes (e.g. Postal address, business classification, contact information, outstanding characteristics, elevation, path to locate (if in mall or multi-story building, etc)). Just as important, modern Geographic Information Systems can extract these data and synthesize them into information more useful than possible when using paper maps, or when considering the map only as a graphical image. Perhaps Waters does not understand the “GIS-magic” under the hood of the internet and it may be that many of the providers and users of geographic information on the Internet do not understand the real magic either. Let’s use the Waters’ article as a guide to think about analytics and how the real future of the Internet may unroll.

“Finding” information, the major use of geographic information on the Internet today, is egocentric process focused on personal navigation. It answers questions like “Where am I? What is around me? Where can I find this? How can I get there?” and other spatially oriented queries. In turn, this “finding” revolution is hitting now because navigable databases, such as those produced by Navteq and TeleAtlas, are finally comprehensive enough to make their use adequate for some of the tasks of interest to people who need to use the “finding” functionalities of spatial displays and spatial software on the Internet.

Of course, the current popularity of “finding” functionality is also related to the fact that the Internet has been turned into a distribution channel for geographical data as have “On Board” (PNDs and in-dash navigation devices) and “Off Board” (cell phone) navigation devices. What is important here is that the availability of navigable map databases through widespread distribution channels provides venues for the use of these data that were not previously available. In turn, this blend is causing both Internet practitioners and other users of 3d-geographical data to ask, “What else can we do with these data and what other data elements might we use to expand our ability to “find” relationships among things?

Let’s think about that next time.

Since the Large Hadron Collider at CERN could generate Micro Black Holes (MBH), Strangelets and Monopoles, I have been finding it hard to get motivated to blog about geospatial stuff – since there may not be geospatial stuff to blog about – or an audience to read about it. Of course, I think that the most insightful comment about the potential of the Hadron Collider was produced by …Frank Sinatra. Well, actually his song writers Leigh and Springer who authored “How Little We Know”. It goes like this -

“How little we know
How much to discover
What chemical forces flow
From lover to lover

How little we understand what touches off that tingle,
That sudden explosion when two tingles intermingle.”

It’s those tingles at the Hadron Collider that have me worried. Case closed!

However, I found out that the Hadron Collider and its beam will not be active until mid-October at the earliest and perhaps not until the beginning of 2009. Faced with this gift of six months, I decided I’d better start-up again. Of course, there is also the possibility that the LHC startup creates no threat to our continued existence– so I thought I would turn to the next biggest danger – GAS PRICES.

“Smart” fuel utilization through effective tactics for optimizing distance-biased puzzles seems to me to be the area where geospatial problem solving might have a lot to contribute. I keep looking to see which PND or in-dash navigation system manufacturers come out with fuel saving features, but the leading edge services continue to offer only “gas price maps” and “vanilla” traffic information.

What are some of the interesting “services” that could be incorporated in routing and navigation software/systems to help solve fuel economy problems?

Traffic (optimize to non-traffic bearing shortest route or ones that minimize a vehicle fuel consumption footprint through time and distance optimization).

Slope prediction (fuel economy through automated drive train management)

Fuel economy warnings (based on analysis of drive train diagnostics or even simple distance/time calculations based on GPS readings and car class)

Fuel economy optimized routing (traffic, speed, distance, slope optimiztion).

Optimized Local Search (eliminating false targets, creating direct routes to desired product or service – eliminating ineffective shopping solutions).

Or put another way, would you be interested in a device (in-dash or onboard (PDA or smart phone) that could provide one or all of these services to help reduce your fuel costs? Thinking about these types of solutions shows why in-dash units won’t be going away soon and points to the problems of making smart phones and PDAs viable players in optimizing fuel economy. Maybe ADAS really does have a future? Conversely, there may be ways to finesse fuel-economy” applications on PDAs and smart phones.

Finally, some of the solutions mentioned above may require additional data that is not currently provided by map data providers – like accurate elevation data. Hmmmm. Isn’t that what Intermap is doing? Perhaps this is the explosion when “…two tingles intermingle”?

So, the other day I connected my TomTom 920 to its cradle hoping to “synch” it with the Mother Ship. Unfortunately, the Mother Ship wanted to download a new version of the TomTom application software. I was rather amused when I agreed to download the update and the following screen popped up

See this PDF showing a large sized version of the figure above.

How about that? I was being asked to remove items that are currently installed on my TomTom 920. Since there is nothing on my device other than the programs and data that TomTom provisioned the device with, I thought this might be interesting. Notice that at right bottom of the page, there is an indication that the free space on my device was 13.6 MB. (Since the system and data are internal the 920 does not require the use of a memory card).

The warning suggests that I need to remove 10.8MB of “items for my TomTom device”. I suppose that meant that the application needed at least another 24.4 MB to load and that the 13.6MB of memory shown as being free was already being claimed for the install footprint. Most users, however, would have been confused – after all, since the device had more than enough free space (more than 10.8mb, at least), why would you need to delete anything?

Well, what to remove? TomTom provided no instructions. Indeed, the sum of the instructions are shown in the illustration above.

Since the application was not in the list of “removables”, I assumed that the new version was an update and not a replacement. That’s a shame, as deleting the application is often the easiest way to free up space on devices requiring an update. What’s the poor user to do?

Suppose you were a non-techno user, what would you choose? How about deleting those “Zip codes” since they are exactly 10.8MB? Maybe “Points of Interest” and a few other files?

I think it is amazing that TomTom would consider letting the user delete their “Maps, Points of Interest and Zip Codes”. Yes, they could be solutions to the space problem, but not ones, I think, that anybody should choose, although TomTom appears ambivalent about the potential choice.

Of course, you can expand the each of the categories and have even more choices to muddle through. I am not sure, however, that would be in anybody’s best interests, so let’s take another route.

I decided that I would be a “normal” user (at least as normal as I ever get). I called TomTom Customer Service.

Of course, you cannot find the number for TomTom customer service in the booklet that comes with the 920. Instead, if you have really sharp eyes, you can find it on the separate card relating to “FCC Regulations”. I suppose most of you have given up reading about how your numerous devices comply with FCC regulations! Well, that’s where I found a telephone number for TomTom U.S. under the section of the form that read “Responsible Party in North America”.

Service was quick. No long phone queue awaited. However, the surly CSR who greeted me told me that the solution to my problem was to “…delete the application.” I explained to her that the application was not on the list of items that could be deleted for this install, but I could tell she did not believe me. Finally, after reiterating and rephrasing the lack of a “delete application” option, I seem to have won her over and she told me that I should expand the voice category and delete one or more of the “voices”, since they were “…just taking up space.”

I thanked her and moved on to selecting voice or voices to delete – after all I needed 13.6MB! To be honest, I did not want to delete any of the voices. Even the ones in foreign languages, since I thought it might be a good way to learn how to give driving instructions to my neighbors in Orange County. However, I finally decided to delete a Spanish language voice category and, when I did so, the install proceeded.

Of course, when I rebooted the device, the voice that I have become quite fond of, an American female voice had mysteriously disappeared and I had to choose a new “persona”. Either I have been living in California so long that I have become bilingual without knowing it, or I have been “dumped” by a PND voice avatar.

Finally, what ever happened to Human Interface Design as a field of study? Oh, I know, everything you need to know is now in the software used to design …display interfaces. Kind of like the knowledge of cartography that is now embedded in Geospatial software - with some of the same kinds of unfathomable results.

(Just a minor editorial note before we start: I do not hold that either the TomTom/TeleAtlas or Nokia/Navteq deals or the structures proposed for the businesses are anti-competitive. The issue for many is the potential future strategies these firms might put on the table, but I doubt that either TomTom or TeleAtlas has developed a realistic, multi-year plan for the businesses they hope to acquire. However, if the leaks to the press on the proposed structural remedy for TomTom’s acquisition of TeleAtlas is true, then we might see a similar proposal applied to Nokia/Navteq - hence my interest.)

Last time we were discussing TomTom and the possible influence of the European Union’s Stage II review on its attempt to acquire TeleAtlas. The point where we dropped off was just before we started debating the “moolah” that would be required to fund the “archived map database” business, which has been suggested as the only practical, structural remedy to the perceived “anti-competitiveness of the deal”.

Since we are talking money here, we should note that in today’s financial news TomTom cut its earnings estimate. TomTom’s stock has been falling for months (down around 50% from its price at the time of the acquisition announcement) and TomTom’s valuation is now less than the price they have agree to pay for TeleAtlas! If ever there was a time to rethink the deal, this is probably it.

At the end of our last post, we concluded that TomTom, in order to satisfy the proposed structural remedy, would have to clone a version of TeleAtlas to meet the presumed requirement that the spin-off be an operable business. So, how much would that business be worth? Well, the usual answer is what someone is willing to pay for it (not what someone is willing to sell it for).

If I have my facts right, no one was willing to bid for TeleAtlas except Garmin and it remains unclear whether or not they were bidding in good faith. Anyone who listened to their conference call on the topic would have had doubts about their intent. Of course, at the same time they were bidding on TeleAtlas, it appears that they were also negotiating with Navteq and may have needed a big stick to get the deal terms of interest to them. Since they are now sitting on a decent, multi-year deal with Navteq, they may not have an interest in bidding for “TeleAtlas – the Clone”.

However, no one else was interested in matching TomTom’s original €2.1 billion bid. If the company was not considered a value by anyone else at the initial price, it is axiomatic that no one would be interested in paying a multiple for the spin-off, based on the final price.

Pick a number between € 1 and 1.5 billion and you might be close to the value the TomTom would put on the spin-off of a TeleAtlas clone. I’m not sure that anyone would be interested in paying in that range. However, if the deal were not in that range, it would seem that TomTom would be very challenged to pay the € 2.9 billion purchase price for TeleAtlas.

Now that they are worth less than their bid for TeleAtlas, TomTom will have to spend a great deal of thought on deciding what it is they want to be when they grow up. My bet – it won’t be a PND manufacturer! Next, if TomTom is ever going to get a good case of “buyer-to be remorse”, which translates to “Whoops, I’m overpaying” it should be between now and the end of May.

Finally, if they are overpaying, is the multiple that TeleAtlas is paying for a profitable Navteq too high? How about too high if the TomTom deal falls through and the EU suggests that Nokia clone Navteq to relieve the anti-competitive issue?

Of course, there really is no truth to this cloning story. Is there?

Well, I’ve had enough of this one (at least in public forums) so next time, I will share with you some thoughts about TomTom and customer service. Yep, I have been using that TomTom 920 and have had some humorous encounters. After that brief digression, I’d like to get back to UGC and some Local Search issues.

So back to the EU, TomTom/TeleAtlas and Nokia/Navteq and this archived database remedy thingy that the EU is supposedly examining.

The story, at this point, goes like this - the EU wants to see TomTom offer someone the right to buy its “archived map database”. In addition, TomTom would have to provide support in the form of technology transfer so the third party could update the database.

Wait, isn’t this what TomTom is buying? Isn’t this the same company that no one else wanted at the price? Please, Garmin did not want to buy the supplier of the database that it did not use in its devices, it was negotiating a better price from Navteq! In any event, do you remember anyone else bidding? Hmmmm. Well, back to the story.

I thought I would die laughing when the original Thompson Financial article quoted a source as saying that the “archived map database” remedy is ‘feasible’ if TomTom is looking to grow through the publication of “new” maps, adding that selling the map archive business could be profitable but runs the risk of diminishing the value of the Tele Atlas acquisition for TomTom. Is it possible that TomTom would look to grow through the publication of “old” maps? What a marketing scheme “Old maps for sale, guaranteed not up-to-date!

But more seriously, providing any advantage to a competitor diminishes the value of the acquisition. Providing “map archives” to a third party would enable a competitor that would soon be selling “new” maps based on their updating of the archived maps. The whole concept of “archived maps” is poorly thought out here and does not reflect the realities of the navigation database market.

However, perhaps I am too hasty. We need to think some more about what is actually involved.

The “archived map database market” is a phrase open to interpretation. Is it a one-time sale? Or, is the database sold on a cyclical basis?

Next, what about coverage? It is possible that the database involved to remedy the “anti-competitive” nature of the TomTom/TeleAtlas acquisition might include Europe, but not the United States. It would seem that the EU might be over-reaching to suggest it can place limitations on data coverage for geographies outside of its own market. Of course, the data are designed to support devices that will be sold outside of the EU as well. At this point, I think the coverage issue is unclear in terms of the geography that TomTom would be forced to license.

Next, any third party that was going to base a business on the data extract provided to them would need access to the tools and technology that TeleAtlas uses to “maintain and distribute” its navigation data, as well as the tools and technology (including those vans) involved in the “collection and compilation” of these data. Oh, but wait! Can you imagine being the CEO who is given a box with the data, a copy of the engineering designs for the vans (including an autographed picture of Don Cooke) and a copy of the relevant software to diddle the data? What now?

It seems to me highly unlikely that any third party would be able to make the TeleAtlas software tools run without a thorough understanding of the processes they support. In addition to the tools and technology, the third party is going to need access to TeleAtlas staff. Of course, we all know how well documented that software is going to be, so it is likely that the third party will need access to the TeleAtlas software engineering pool. Actually, the third party will claim that they need the technologists, software engineers, hardware engineers and field teams, or they will be unable to do anything with the data. So it seems, at least to me, that to make this work, TomTom would have to “clone” TeleAtlas to provide the third-party remedy the EU envisions. Funny, but I think that is exactly what TomTom is attempting to acquire. Hmmm.

Well, let’s skip the rest of the detail on the technology transfer and think about “Moolah”. Maybe we should talk about that next time. However, I will tell you that you won’t be any more optimistic about this remedy when we finish.