3 ms·

And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? I’m guessin

And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? I’m guessing that’s the point at which we pivot back into ‘Oh noes, Google closes every unprofitable service’ Google providing these services is contingent on them being linked together, both for Google and for the user.

claudeganon 7y ago
Then other services begin to become competitive again because they’re not up against a surveillance juggernaut market dumping with subsidized products to hoover up more data. That’s exactly the purpose of anti-monopoly regulation. Honestly, the turn away from making money from the service itself vs using it as a front for some other, more abstract ploy is where tech has gone wrong in the past couple decades.
Alex3917 7y ago
> And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps. That's why Apple made their own version. It's not exactly a cash cow, but they're not providing it for free either.
- gruez 7y ago
  >They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps Can you elaborate on this? Are you talking about their javascript APIs[1], or for the right to preload the app on their subcribers' phones? [1] eg. https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview
- bobviolier 7y ago
  Pretty sure Apple didn't pay anything for having Google Maps in the app store. It was Google that wanted to be there. I think Apple did want navigation, POI information and user information to use in for example Siri (and linking to locations in other apps).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- scarface74 7y ago
  Google paid Apple billions for being the default search engine since the iPhone was released. Google may have charged Apple for usage, but Google was far more interested in gaining analytics from iOS users than the money. That’s what caused Apple to cancel their contract.
feanaro 7y ago
Then someone else can enter the market and make a profitable mapping service.
- kristianc 7y ago
  This may not be exactly what you want to hear, but there are probably around five companies globally with the scale to be able to launch a mapping service of the requisite quality - and that's before they've made a cent from it. If your goal is not adding to perceived monopoly power, I don't think you'll like any of the five options. It has taken Apple billions of dollars and over five years to get anywhere close, Nokia built an actually pretty reasonable Mapping solution and had to more or less give up the ghost due to the expense. Validating that the routes on the map actually exists and continue to exist more or less requires access to mobility data from every street, walkway, nook and cranny on the planet. Any mapping solution able to achieve the requisite scale will run into exactly the same issues with data centralization. Who exactly do you see entering the market?
  - feanaro 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that if Google disappeared tomorrow, the world would carry on without a mapping service? I highly doubt it and I also feel we won't go far by simply theorizing about it. Google doesn't just have a perceived monopoly. Or perhaps monopoly isn't the right word, but I also can't think of a better one. It is about its pervasiveness and presence on too many markets at once, coupled with availability of too much data. None of those five companies you vaguely hint at might themselves be a better basket on their own but they are at least five additional baskets. Removing a service from the most pervasive company is a win in itself, IMO.
    - kristianc 7y ago
      > It is about its pervasiveness and presence on too many markets at once, coupled with availability of too much data. It's precisely the pervasiveness and availability of the data that drives the quality of the mapping service. I'm curious as to how you think you can have one without the other.

claudeganon 7y ago

Then other services begin to become competitive again because they’re not up against a surveillance juggernaut market dumping with subsidized products to hoover up more data. That’s exactly the purpose of anti-monopoly regulation. Honestly, the turn away from making money from the service itself vs using it as a front for some other, more abstract ploy is where tech has gone wrong in the past couple decades.

Alex3917 7y ago

> And what happens when Google decides that it doesn’t much fancy providing a Mapping service for free at huge cost that it has no way of monetizing? They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps. That's why Apple made their own version. It's not exactly a cash cow, but they're not providing it for free either.

gruez 7y ago
>They charge phone companies billions of dollars for the use of Maps Can you elaborate on this? Are you talking about their javascript APIs[1], or for the right to preload the app on their subcribers' phones? [1] eg. https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview https://developers.google.com/maps/premium/overview
bobviolier 7y ago
Pretty sure Apple didn't pay anything for having Google Maps in the app store. It was Google that wanted to be there. I think Apple did want navigation, POI information and user information to use in for example Siri (and linking to locations in other apps).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
scarface74 7y ago
Google paid Apple billions for being the default search engine since the iPhone was released. Google may have charged Apple for usage, but Google was far more interested in gaining analytics from iOS users than the money. That’s what caused Apple to cancel their contract.

feanaro 7y ago

Then someone else can enter the market and make a profitable mapping service.

kristianc 7y ago
This may not be exactly what you want to hear, but there are probably around five companies globally with the scale to be able to launch a mapping service of the requisite quality - and that's before they've made a cent from it. If your goal is not adding to perceived monopoly power, I don't think you'll like any of the five options. It has taken Apple billions of dollars and over five years to get anywhere close, Nokia built an actually pretty reasonable Mapping solution and had to more or less give up the ghost due to the expense. Validating that the routes on the map actually exists and continue to exist more or less requires access to mobility data from every street, walkway, nook and cranny on the planet. Any mapping solution able to achieve the requisite scale will run into exactly the same issues with data centralization. Who exactly do you see entering the market?
- feanaro 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that if Google disappeared tomorrow, the world would carry on without a mapping service? I highly doubt it and I also feel we won't go far by simply theorizing about it. Google doesn't just have a perceived monopoly. Or perhaps monopoly isn't the right word, but I also can't think of a better one. It is about its pervasiveness and presence on too many markets at once, coupled with availability of too much data. None of those five companies you vaguely hint at might themselves be a better basket on their own but they are at least five additional baskets. Removing a service from the most pervasive company is a win in itself, IMO.
  - kristianc 7y ago
    > It is about its pervasiveness and presence on too many markets at once, coupled with availability of too much data. It's precisely the pervasiveness and availability of the data that drives the quality of the mapping service. I'm curious as to how you think you can have one without the other.