3 ms·

I’d disagree a bit. There are competitors but the quality and the service is not on the same level. Google have made it hard to compete so that they stay in the

I’d disagree a bit. There are competitors but the quality and the service is not on the same level. Google have made it hard to compete so that they stay in the leadership position. More importantly google maps “owns” more market share than all of them combined so it is kinda a monopoly. I might not have explained my point well but I do think you get what I’m saying.

ajross 8y ago
If players with the resources of Apple and Microsoft are lagging here, it's not because Google "made it hard", it's because it's a hard problem. Yet they are competing, and that's a good thing. Google is just better. And you want it for free. And thus we get back to the cry-me-a-river bit.
- 0x0 8y ago
  Or is it because being in a #1 market position with a (until now) free price tag attracted thousands of volunteers submitting content and corrections for free?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    I've probably spent a few hours correcting Google Maps (and a couple of days on OSM).
- vezycash 8y ago
  Maps quality like search engine probably increases with the number of users.
- hueving 8y ago
  Companies with deep pockets trying and failing to gain a meaningful share in a market is more proof of a monopoly or other anti-competitive behavior, not less.
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    Could you point to this supposed behavior? Price and quality are, in themselves, not anticompetitive.
    - duncanawoods 8y ago
      "Dumping" i.e. Putting out a product below cost to eliminate competitors is one of the fundamental forms of anticompetitive behaviour. All of Googles "free" products seem to fit the definition - they would not profitable standalone without Google's dominance in other markets and companies only operating in a single market cannot compete.
  - beagle3 8y ago
    They are failing to provide comparable service, and thus failing to get meaningful share. I heard Apple maps is recently ok, but a couple of years ago when I tried it, it was still bad. Google has about 10 times more info than Apple or bing per building I look up (though, surprisingly, OSM is 90% of the way there for me).

ajross 8y ago

If players with the resources of Apple and Microsoft are lagging here, it's not because Google "made it hard", it's because it's a hard problem. Yet they are competing, and that's a good thing. Google is just better. And you want it for free. And thus we get back to the cry-me-a-river bit.

0x0 8y ago
Or is it because being in a #1 market position with a (until now) free price tag attracted thousands of volunteers submitting content and corrections for free?
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  I've probably spent a few hours correcting Google Maps (and a couple of days on OSM).
vezycash 8y ago
Maps quality like search engine probably increases with the number of users.
hueving 8y ago
Companies with deep pockets trying and failing to gain a meaningful share in a market is more proof of a monopoly or other anti-competitive behavior, not less.
- freeone3000 8y ago
  Could you point to this supposed behavior? Price and quality are, in themselves, not anticompetitive.
  - duncanawoods 8y ago
    "Dumping" i.e. Putting out a product below cost to eliminate competitors is one of the fundamental forms of anticompetitive behaviour. All of Googles "free" products seem to fit the definition - they would not profitable standalone without Google's dominance in other markets and companies only operating in a single market cannot compete.
- beagle3 8y ago
  They are failing to provide comparable service, and thus failing to get meaningful share. I heard Apple maps is recently ok, but a couple of years ago when I tried it, it was still bad. Google has about 10 times more info than Apple or bing per building I look up (though, surprisingly, OSM is 90% of the way there for me).