Apple didn't have to top Google, or even equal them. All they had to do was come out with a competent product. There were several options: 1) Realize that th

Apple didn't have to top Google, or even equal them. All they had to do was come out with a competent product. There were several options: 1) Realize that they weren't ready, suck it up, and negotiate with Google to keep their map as the primary product, until they were ready. 2) Decide that, strategically, they couldn't go with Google, so they would use some other third party - Bing, for instance, has some nice maps - but I'm sure those who know more than me could identify the partner would have been appropriate. They could have used this time to develop their mapping platform. But, they decided to go with the third option: 3) Try to build a mapping platform before they were ready to, and deliver an inferior product to their customers, albeit with some flashy "3D building" touring. They put the icing on the cake before the substances was ready. Now, ironically - I'm personally in no way effected. Living in the Bay Area, everything that I want from a mapping product right now is there. I quite like the IOS 6 product. But, it doesn't stop me from noting that Apple delivered a sub-optimal product, when they had the choice to do otherwise. It seems to be the blind-spot in their DNA - they are able to build great physical products, and competent operating systems - but web services continue to be a challenge for them to bring the same fit and finish to.