Actually I think Apple won here. Google was refusing to release a turn by turn direction update to their apps. By developing an Apple Map App with turn by turn, they kind of forced GooG to provide it on iOS platform. Also, it is very difficult for google to ignore ios users.
How is that a win? Apple got egg on their face from all the bad press. They had to shell out a ton of money for 2 map companies they bought, money for all the map data they are buying, plus all the engineering resources to create the product.
Google Maps lets google have full branding on the iphone and can gather all the data they want from users. And they can have all the branding on the Maps that they want.
If I remember right, some of the reasons Apple and Google didn't agree on maps is that Google wanted more branding and to gather more data. And I also believe Apple wasn't too happy about paid advertisements appearing for map search results.
How much money Apple or Google spent is not really an issue Both are loaded, especially Apple. And unless the egg in the face translated to lost sales, it will go away.
Never underestimate the power of "default" and Apple can tighten the screws on Google Maps to make iOS maps look even better. Bottom line is that Apple is working on their own maps and that's a major loss for Google.
Apple engineered a process that tarnished a major iOS release, broke a key function on the iPhone as smartphone competition started heating up, prompted the departure of key leaders and basically ceded control of mapping.
In exchange, they got Google to release their own maps app, which included features that Google refused to license to Apple previously, and gave Google a platform to sell ads and make money. So users get good maps + transit + turn by turn navigation at no cost.
> Google was refusing to release a turn by turn direction update to their apps.
Your choice of wording here is rather misleading. Apple wrote the old Maps app. Google refused to allow Apple to add turn-by-turn to the old maps app. We will never know the true reasons, but it was likely due to Apple refusing to relinquish control of what was displayed to the user.
We do know some of the reasons negotiations for adding turn-by-turn broke down[1]. Google wanted more branding and Latitude support. Latitude seemed like a weird thing to demand since it's not a particularly useful feature until you realize that it's just something to get people to turn on Location History (which is the secret sauce that makes all these nice location based Google Now cards work).
How is going from having your app presinstalled on every device and being maintained, for free, by Apple developers to having to write and maintain your own app and put it in the app store a "win"??
There is no win here for Google! Less users (not everyone is going to install it), less data coming in, more money spent, having to hire more dedicated iOS coders inhouse at Google...
I think you're missing some of the major pros for Google...
With this new app, they control all of the branding, all of the upstream data gathering, and paid ads.
It may be a win in a similar way that the Chrome browser was a win. Google kicked browser competition into high gear in terms of performance and ACID compliance when they launched Chrome. Apple Maps may have had a similar effect. I hate to use "killer app" but a great GPS makes the phone a more valuable device.
I still have a standalone GPS in the car which we will definitely not need once we all upgrade to phones with turn-by-turn directions. I have relatives that pride themselves in not needing smartphones, but seeing turn-by-turn was very compelling.
My question which I haven't seen a definitive answer on is if Google had the ability pre-iOS 6 to do turn-by-turn? They already had it on Android. Were they slow on iOS, or were key APIs missing?
[Did] Google [have] the ability pre-iOS 6 to do turn-by-turn?
The original Maps app was written by Apple and consumed data licensed from (and presumably hosted by?) Google. Apple wanted turn-by-turn on iOS, but the data required was not part of their original deal with Google. Google was willing to license it, provided that Apple give Google additional data: presumably anonymized data about where users were for Google to use to provide better AI. Although it's quite possible Google wanted better hooks to serve ads as well. They couldn't reach a deal, so Apple went their own way.
Apple and Google were certainly technically capable of building Google-backed turn-by-turn into iOS 6, if not much earlier.
Wow, I had forgotten in all of this that the original app was written by Apple. So going back to the original comment of being a "win for Apple"- this does seem to have been an end-around past the licensing issue, but not much of a "win" for Apple. Google gets kicked out of the default app and launches a third-part app in probably the best possible way for them though.
That's an interesting perspective, but there are a few problems with it. I think Apple could live without the brand tarnish from the Maps app (mostly, the errors in the data). It's become a running joke against the platform and a bit of PR nightmare as park officials warn people not to depend on it.
The move to smartphones gave us powerful, handheld computers. Apple proved to be awesome in that space. Now, however, these phones are becoming small glass windows to cloud services that crunch large datasets to give you quick, meaningful, and accurate answers. With Maps and Siri, I think Apple is showing that they don't yet have the competency here that they've enjoyed with hardware and interface. I'm not ruling them out, but it feels like the game has moved to play more to Google's advantage.
I think it's a huge loss for Apple. They tried to break free from Google and failed. Apple users are now more reliant than ever on Google services to use their phones.
I would imagine that Gmail, Calendar, Search and Maps are used on almost every single device that they sell and they have no control over those services.
If Google would introduce a new feature in Maps, let's say indoor navigation, then Apple would be completely in the hands of Google for when that feature would be available to their users.
You could easily see a future where more and more Google services become popular on Apple devices. If that's the case Apple essentially becomes just another OEM like Samsung or HTC.
It's the consumer who wins in the end. The old model had an outdated map app. Now we've got two major companies competing to create a great map app on iOS.
My first thought was along the same lines. What if this was a long con to get Google to release what Apple wanted for free? Any bets on if Apple Maps is gone in iOS 7 and google maps becomes the system mapping provider again?
I guess you are confused. Google was ready to provide those features in exchange for their branding and also ability to display ads. Apple did not agree to that, and now Google has that option as being 3rd party app, which iOS users now need to explicitly install.
No one really won here, but if I really would have to pick up a winner, it would be Google.
Do we know these are facts or are these pundit interpretations of nods and whispers? I see a lot of people screaming about how it went down, but they are just citing thrice-removed speculation from a blog four months ago.
Now that I've read this, I was starting to think the same thing. Apple is completely capable of creating good software. They have all the resources they need, and "polish" is what their company is all about, so why release a sub-par app?
Apple has created and released loads of rubbish software over the years, but most people have forgotten much of it. Consider the short attention given to OS X Server / AWO, MobileMe, the ongoing security problems with Apple IDs, forcing people to have iCloud email addresses in order to sync the Notes app... not to mention the VERY long span of time where Windows absolutely kicked MacOS's butt in being able to multitask effectively.
Oh yeah, and iTunes. It's better-looking now, but it remains a monster. To call it sub-par would still be kind.
Of the difficult data problems in the world, creating an online mirror map of the physical world is probably in the top three.
Let's say Apple tried. They didn't know how hard it would be, so they bought all the companies they could. They realized, "shit--this still won't be good enough, but we can't give in to mountain view." Their only move? Release 98% done maps anyway and hope Google misses the iOS map spying ad traffic. iOS maps is perfectly usable, but it's not perfect for every situation (park layouts, transit, inside building directions, more sane turn-by-turn routing).
Google has been doing massive data collection for years (mapping individual internal building layouts? street view gps trails by bike? insane on a world scale.) How can anybody possibly get close to the polish of Google's mapping data (varying wildly by country though)? Apple should have made every Apple Store a base of mapping operations. They should have sent people out with gps loggers to run, bike, walk, drive everywhere they could. Someday a company will buy google just for its mapping capability and toss the rest in the bitbucket.
That assumes that Google's search ad revenue, and perhaps their growing application service provider revenue, are going to be tiny relative to this hypothetical acquiring company's revenue.
It seems absurd now, but on those timelines you could be right. If nothing else, a lot can change in 10-50 years.
It's a win for Google. Google was asking for a Google Maps branding in return for turn directions on the official Maps app but was refused. Now that Google Maps exists everyone can clearly see that Google Maps is the better one.
As I recall, the reason that Apple chose not to include turn by turn in the official maps app was because they early on had high-profile partnerships with GPS makers who had expensive apps on the app store.
Agreed. Google should have kept maps as an android-only product. Whatever ill-will Apple has gotten over maps is now gone because "I can just install google maps for free now!"
I disagree, Google's long term play isn't to "own" a platform and have everyone live in it (a la apple/microsoft). Google is an internet company and it's overall strategy is to have everyone on the internet. Because if you are on the internet, chances are you will use a Google product (by choice).
Google doesn't care about iphone vs android. Google only cares that you are using the internet. An iphone/ipad is an expensive device for well off people. Androids don't have to be and less expensive products broadens the market. A market which when broader, is going to be owned by Google.
Making google maps a iOS product only encourages more people to use the internet and thus google.
>Google only cares that you are using the internet.
Google also cares about its earning reports and stock price. "Using the internet" doesn't pay the bills. Google is far from a charity. Its a multinational corporation beholden to its stock holders.
Google made a strategic decision to piss on its mobile division to help its maps division. This may not have been the wisest move and considering how google stock prices have been falling lately, well, wise moves is something it needs to focus on.
I just hope google knows what its doing. Apple is ruthless against Android, yet google seems to be pretty easy going with iOS.
>Its a multinational corporation beholden to its stock holders.
Larry, Sergei, and Eric own almost all Class B shares which have 10 votes each. They control about 65% of the voting shares. So really the rest of the stockholders are just along for the ride. Google is really in this for the long game.
