ZuluTime has been working a silicon partner for a number of months to enable high resolution positioning on their Wi-Fi System On a Chip (SOC). The ultimate goal is to turn these devices that were initially designed as sensor network nodes into mini ZuluTime positioning satellites while still fulfilling the sensor mission. Our recent milestones finds ourselves tracking these sensors within three to five meters in real time under mobile situations. Beyond the Smart Grid, many applications need only static nodes and when these sensors are not moving these positioning resolutions shrink to one meter. This positioning resolution especially under blockage and signal reflection conditions is extremely valuable for the efficient tracking of asset as well as for real time navigation in complex environments.

The first tidal wave was 2007 when the PND market commoditized. The second tidal wave will be 2009 when PND manufactures will watch the overall location market pie grow while simultaneously watching their slice of the pie contract (and maybe drastically).

What’s causing this? The migration of location onto cell phones.

In essence, PND manufacturers are going to suffer a world of hurt as location enabled cell phones start hammering their core business.

The trend has already started with Garmin the world leader in GPS devices. Though they have $624 million in the bank their stock price has whittled considerably in the past four quarters from $100 a year ago to $22 today. To be sure, other market forces are at play but the share price erosion is taking place at the exact same time that location enabled handsets are becoming a growth engine for carriers.

Any better over at TomTom? No. Last December they were $64.82 – today they are trading at $5.88.

So the question to the PND manufacturer is: What business are you in? Are you in the PND business? Or are you in the commercial/consumer location business.

If the former, good luck.

If the latter then we know someone who can help (and their initials are ZT). Pardon the shameless plug.

Again, this doesn’t in any way mean that the location market is trending downward. Quite the opposite, the market will continue to grow robustly. But the size of each player’s slice will change. PND’s will contract while cell phone will enlarge.

Check out http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/081020/tech01.html?.v=1 for a good commentary. Though I don’t agree with everything they say, it’s a good synopsis.

The LBS 2.0 definition (if there really is one) currently concentrates on the application end of things where it now must also look at how does the user’s device actually find its position. In other words, what is the underlying signals/frequency methodology in finding the user’s location?

The entire location market is moving decisively into this new realm of application side LBS 2.0. The positioning method side has evolved slowly. We hope to change the game here by revolutionizing the positioning method and giving it its own vector in LBS 2.0.

But first….why is this vector important? It is important because LBS 2.0 mean higher precision, higher reliability and greater cost efficiency. These are the heart of the LBS value matrix. These three categories generate user adoption and drive revenue for the LBS provider.

So why is LBS 2.0 different or at least why is our methodology different? One reason is our approach to precision timing which by extension is precision location. All real-time navigation sits on the foundation of timing. The more precise your timing across the network the more precise your location. GPS satellites are essentially very accurate, very stable clocks.

What’s different about ZT is that we collapse the typical categories of infrastructure vs. client or satellites vs. GPS device to get positioning. This approach is seen across a host of current positioning system architectures and GPS is one of them. The GPS satellites simply provide the positioning down to the passive clients who receive the data from multiple satellites, process them and display location. For LBS 1.0 this was great – Location Based Services just needed input from the prescribed location method. GPS is the most prevalent followed by a variety of cellular infrastructure based techniques. The problem gets to the heart of the value matrix: these techniques are not very accurate, they are not very reliable and they can get very expensive. LBS 2.0 can also entail different positioning methods wrapped into service but that is irrelevant if it can’t optimize this value matrix.

So what’s the 2.0 in LBS 2.0? It’s not just reliability and accuracy with cost efficiency. The 2.0 is the method by which we are accomplishing the positioning and in an odd way is similar to the methods of Web 2.0. Wikipedia does a nice job of defining Web 2.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0) and goes to great lengths to acknowledge that it has varying levels of definition the most important of which are the following traits (these items paraphrased from the wiki entry):

1) Web 2.0 is an architecture of participation where users can contribute website content [that] creates network effects.

2) Web 2.0 creates reciprocity between the user and the provider where users upload and download instead of passively downloading a web page (this is actually a quote by British Guardian writer Stephen Fry).

3) Web 2.0 is the transition … from isolated information silos to interlinked computing platforms that function like locally-available software.

How is this similar to LBS 2.0?

1) LBS 2.0 is an architecture of participation where the user’s device contributes key data into the network and creates network effects (see earlier post The Law of the Location Aware Mobile Wireless Network: Part 2: http://zulutimecorp.com/2007/09/thelawofthelocation_aware.htm) This is discrete from infrastructure vs. client implementations that define GPS and most cell tower techniques today.

2) LBS 2.0 leverages reciprocity between the user and provider. This is much like user contribution in #1 but this takes it further. In LBS 2.0 the reciprocity means the user’s device submits key data into the positioning network and the recipients (what is historically looked at as infrastructure) takes the data, processes it with its own data and passes it BACK to the user. This reciprocal relationship is an ongoing process.

3) Finally LBS 2.0 is the transition from information silos to platforms that have are essentially interlinked and can act as locally available software. LBS 1.0 is the historic infrastructure silo vs. clients silo. In LBS 2.0 the clients can be robust members of the core positioning capability as well lending its own data into the network as key members enabling it. Processing for the positioning can largely occur on each device while still minimizing code, power and processing footprints. Further the processing can be broken up in a distributed manner.

We view LBS 2.0 as THE next generation location method. It is not possible to reach the location demands and requirements over the next decade without these in place.

Note – that I said “devices.” This means the positioning network soon can be done with Wi-Fi devices as simple as Wi-Fi enabled cameras, headphones, printers (think sensor networks) all the way to enterprise access points. The reason this is so intriguing to us from a functionality side is that no longer does the enterprise user have to depend on access point infrastructure to drive the positioning network. Instead the user can use the existing devices within the network to derive the positioning. A host of implementation options exist on how this deploys. Many users will want a minimum number of access points in the network which is fine.

From a technology side this is very exciting to us since, ultimately being timing guys, we can drive off the shelf Wi-Fi devices to such precise performance – remember that all real-time navigation is based on timing and the more precise the timing synchronization within your positioning network is the more accurate your location is. There are other methods of getting to this accuracy over Wi-Fi of course, RSSI is one of them. However they aren’t for dynamic environments and are not scalable. Our software is focused on providing these wireless networks with secure, scalable and reliable geolocation with high accuracy. Being agnostic to frequency and architecture the same principles here apply to cellular and first responder radio as well.

But the past couple of years saw basic adoption of FM transmissions to the devices but only for traffic reports. Garmin, Magellan, TomTom all had rudimentary FM provided traffic update capabilities for drive-time users but the capability was nothing like what’s progressing now. Dash Navigation is ahead of the pack by concentrating on the high value services that the Internet connected GPS device can offer. That means providing Wi-Fi and Cellular capabilities to the device. This allows them to provide continuously updated location specific data for the user but also allows the end user to search Yahoo Local (for example) for location relevant data instead of a static database of entries loaded by the manufacturer. Check http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/dash-gps-priced-at-599/dash-express-video-and-deets-internet-connected-gps-for-599-334322.php. By 2009 I’m sure you’ll see all the major manufacturers going this direction with their units with Magellan is already starting. And of course don’t get me started on how compelling Garmin’s nuvifone is: http://garmin.blogs.com/my_weblog/2008/02/phone-scoop-pos.html.

So why do we love this? Because ZuluTime is all about making the wireless network location aware. The wireless networks that feed the Dash and like devices can have positioning inherently built in and further extend the positioning reach of these devices. Remember, GPS is Global, but it’s not Ubiquitous. GPS devices all have performance limitations which typically occur in the urban core and indoors due to the weak transmitted signal power. With Wi-Fi, Cellular, WiMAX or other connection capabilities to the device, ZuluTime provides the robust, precise location data when GPS drops out. This is entirely transparent to the end user. The end user cares about only one thing: Where are they on the map and what is the relevant contextual data to their location. They don’t care how the device determines its location. The seamless transition back and forth of using GPS signals and the ZuluTime enabled Wi-Fi or Cell signals happens under the covers of the device. This can be simply augmenting the GPS signals in clear line of sight or entirely filling in when the GPS signals completely drop out.

As you can see, we are quite excited about this trend.

This cross radio functionality is relevant to ZuluTime in that our technology hops along seamlessly as well. Because ZuluTime data is “sprinkled” throughout the network and rides along with the existing data, a Wi-Fi/WiMAX multi-mode device can use the positioning data from both sides, intermingle the data and ultimately arrive at a more robust, precise positioning. The capability also allows the device to have full positioning utility when one of the networks is not available.

Adjacent to this is the exciting possibility of a mobile WiMAX laptop or in-dash WiMAX being an actual server to Wi-Fi connected devices in the same car: http://www.dailywireless.org/2008/02/12/mobile-wimax-at-world-congress/. This is compelling to us at ZuluTime because it means these Wi-Fi devices could be providing ZuluTime positioning data back into the WiMAX network just as easily as they receive it. ZuluTime is unique in that it isn’t an infrastructure-only capability. All devices in the network can provide data back into the network which adds to the robustness of the network positioning resolution. The flip side is that devices certainly don’t have to provide data back in – they can be entirely silent.

Whether it’s chipset handovers or in-car cross platform services we few these developments as very positive to the growing importance of location aware networks.

He had recently watch the Blade Runner with his son and afterwards asked his son if anything was striking about the movie that was made in 1982 about Los Angeles in 2019. His son replied he noticed there were no cell phones in 2019. With all the brilliant forecasting Ridley Scott did about this bleak future of the human race (flying cars!), he didn’t forecast the reality of the “connected” future. This is quite alright but the discussion we had took an interesting turn when we talked about the prevalence of wireless networks today, and how it’s difficult to be truly disconnected unless you try. Further, soon in our future it will be very difficult to be lost. In other words location awareness will be, if not built into the fabric of many of our daily lives, so readily available particularly in urban areas there will be no excuse for “sorry I’m late I got lost.” We know the enterprise and especially hospitals have been moving this direction for the past few years. Talk to any CTO of a hospital of any size and they will probably tell you that location will be built into most of their environments and applications over the next five years.

It’s no surprise Ridley didn’t forecast location pervasiveness for his futuristic L.A. If he did that then Deckard never would have had any problem tracking and finding his replicants now would he?

Metcalfe was actually talking about telecommunication networks and obviously thinking in a “wired” sense. However, cutting those wires and turning those networks into wireless networks only adds value to a once physically constrained system. But now add mobility. The mobile wireless network has enormous value over static networks and is illustrated in the killer app of telecom in the 90’s: Cellular. The final piece though enhances that value even further. That piece is the addition of location awareness to the network. The location aware mobile wireless network is not one that simply tells the user where they are at any point in time but provides a host of capabilities not leveraged now. This kind of network can provide next generation diagnostic data for RF network managers providing key data not only on where in the network the problem is but definitive characterizations of the signaling problem. It can provide Mobile Resource Management (MRM) location data for all assets within the network continuously from inside the factory to entirely across town. Through automotive telematics it can safely guide automobiles through the urban core precisely where GPS has reliability issues. It is a technology we have worked hard to develop and we look forward to working with our partners in the coming months, quarters and years to deploy across WiFi, WiMAX, digital ad hoc radio, cellular and other networks.

In the past three years that we have been developing our location-aware network technology we have witnessed not only Google Maps and Google Earth (http://earth.google.com/) transform the geoaware landscape but we have seen the robust adoption of GPS devices throughout the consumer, prosumer and professional markets. The GPS device market in the US was more than a $10 billion last year. Compounding this is the rapid expansion of wireless networks across metro regions and across the enterprise such as factories, warehouses and hospitals. The intersection of location aware applications with wireless networks is something we feel can transform businesses and the way we work and live. Therein lies what we see as the Law of the Location Aware Mobile Wireless Network. Quantifying that value is what I will be exploring in future posts.