4 ms·
A piece I may have just missed in the article is what the advantage of using Skyhook is/was over the Google offering. From the Skyhook website: Skyhook's Devi
by PetrolMan 15y ago
A piece I may have just missed in the article is what the advantage of using Skyhook is/was over the Google offering.
From the Skyhook website:
Skyhook's Devices can easily provide location-awareness to any Wi-Fi enabled device. Its portable architecture delivers location while minimizing device-specific implementation time. Skyhook's Core Engine is an entirely software-only location system and does not require specialized hardware chipsets. The lightweight client can be configured to run across a broad range of mobile operating systems, devices and platforms.
So was the advantage just speed of implementation and the cost of the hardware?
- drewvolpe 15y agoGoogle and Skyhook both do the same thing: their code can locate a device via what wifi access points it can see. This requires significantly less battery than GPS and it also is much more accurate in buildings and urban areas (where GPS doesn't work well).
- alanfalcon 15y agoThe advantage seemed to be the perception (based in reality or not) that Skyhook's services resulted in better (faster/more reliable) results than Google's offering. It's possible that Skyhook's sales team just did a better job of selling an identical product, but the e-mails seem to indicate that Google definitely had historically offered an inferior product (thought they felt their current offering was equal to or better than Skyhook's).
- drewvolpe 15y agoIt is interesting how quick the Googlers were to dismiss Motorola's test. Rather than understand what their potential customer looked for in their product, they simply said "we tested it in San Francisco and our results were better".