Global On-board Navigation Software Matrix

On-board handset-based navigation software providers are assessed based on a limited number of Innovation and Implementation criteria related to their branded and/or white-label solutions.

Implementation



  • Market Share - Overall share of installed base and sales market share

  • Carrier agreements - Number and importance of partnerships with carriers

  • Handset and PDA manufacturer agreements - Number and importance of partnerships with handset manufacturers

  • Market positioning - Quality and relevance of communication, branding, and marketing campaigns and programs

  • Mobile platforms and form factor coverage - Number of supported mobile platforms, operating systems, and handset models

  • Organizational health - Financial and overall organizational strength

  • Global coverage - Global presence in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and developing regions

  • Quality and reliability - Consistency of the navigation experience

  • Customization - Quality and timeliness of white label implementation flexibility



Innovation


  • Navigation features - Number and relevance of options, such as routing options, navigation modes, map display modes, etc.

  • Local search - Local search, premium content, and local partnerships

  • Map upgrades - Frequency and ease of use

  • Traffic information - Availability of real-time traffic information at no additional cost

  • Business model/pricing options - Number and relevance of pricing options

  • Open APIs - Flexibility to interface with other applications

  • Sharing- Functionality to share POIs, routes, and landmarks with friends and family

Rankings



After individual scores are established for Innovation and Implementation using the above criteria, an overall company score is established using the Root Mean Square (RMS) method:




The resulting overall scores are then ranked and used for percentile comparisons.

The RMS method, in comparison with a straight summation or average of individual innovation and implementation values, rewards companies for standout performance.

For example, using this method a company with an innovation score of 9 and an implementation score of 1 would score considerably higher than a company with a score of 5 in both areas, despite the mean score being the same. ABI Research believes this is appropriate as the goal of these matrices is to highlight those companies that stand out from the others.