6 ms·

First, to get it out of the way: People are very right in mocking Apple. They deserve every bit of that. What they delivered with their Maps app is embarrassing

by arrrg 14y ago

First, to get it out of the way: People are very right in mocking Apple. They deserve every bit of that. What they delivered with their Maps app is embarrassing. I do not want to defend that. The problem, however, is that this article assumes something to be unequivocally true even though we do not know whether it is: That Apple decided to build their own maps in order to hurt Google. It takes two to play. Both Apple and Google have to agree that Apple gets to use Google’s data – and on the conditions. That we know nothing about. We do know, however, that the old Maps app was perpetually stuck in 2007 while Android phones gained 3D views and (much more important) vector maps and turn by turn navigation. If Google refused to give that to Apple it’s perfectly understandable that Apple goes looking for alternatives. I’m not saying that’s the case. It could really be that Apple’s intention here was to hurt Google – but we cannot, as this article does, just assume that to be true. (To quote: “We all know the reason why Apple is doing these things. They’re more focused now on hurting Google than thrilling users, just like they were with Microsoft in the 90s.” – no, we do most certainly not all know that that’s the case.)

saurik 14y ago
We have good evidence for turn-by-turn, though: when Apple decided "ok, we cave, here's an SDK and an App Store", the contracts with developers had a weird clause saying you couldn't build a turn-by-turn application that was later changed to only that you could not build a turn-by-turn application using the data that Apple had licensed from Google; while this isn't for certain, the obvious interpretation of this is that when Apple built the iPhone they licensed Google Maps but with the clause "the iPhone cannot do turn-by-turn", which got awkward with an SDK, and later got fixed in legalese to specify "we cannot do it, but if someone else independently has data and licenses it, they can".
- fpgeek 14y ago
  It is worth noting that Google themselves didn't offer turn-by-turn directions until Android 2.0 (October 2009). Interestingly, Google Maps Navigation launched in the US shortly after they had ditched Tele Atlas (owned by TomTom) as a US data provider. It was speculated (though not confirmed, as far as I could find) that Google ended the relationship because it was too expensive/restrictive with respect to turn-by-turn navigation. That makes me wonder if original turn-by-turn restrictions were Google's idea or a requirement of Google's existing contracts. If so, it's obvious Google decided to continue those restrictions for their own reasons and so history has repeated itself.
  - DrStalker 14y ago
    Given how much TomTom charged for their navigation app long after GPS stopped being a high cost luxury product I wouldn't be surprised if they demanded too much money from Google.
- adnrw 14y ago
  ...the obvious interpretation of this is that when Apple built the iPhone they licensed Google Maps but with the clause "the iPhone cannot do turn-by-turn" This is from Google's Maps/Earth API TOS: 10.2 (c) No Navigation, Autonomous Vehicle Control, or Enterprise Applications: (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device. - https://developers.google.com/maps/terms https://developers.google.com/maps/terms As far as I know, that clause has always been in the TOS (I looked into the licensing in 2010 and it definitely was in there then).
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    While true for the average developer, I would imagine a deal brokered between bizdev teams would look drastically different than those ToS.
    - clutteredname_ 14y ago
      A valid point, but it is conceivable that a similar clause would find its way into larger licensing/development agreements. Turn-by-turn could have been some gem thy wanted to hold as Google's one-up on any client built using their own API. Truthfully, it would be dumb of Google to give away everything, and keeping turn-by-turn (or even just a broader navigation scope) is something I can see as the ace in the hole they hold onto regardless.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I've said it elsewhere, I think this is a better explanation of the Maps fiasco than saying that Apple thought they could pull it off. We don't know of course, but we do know that Apple suing Google's OEMs has irritated Google's inner circle. So Apple can ship Google Maps without making call outs to Google's servers, and Google has implemented a payment scheme this year, recipe for reciprocity. [1] [1] Ok so generally reciprocity is mutual benefit but I couldn't resist the alliteration.
andreyf 14y ago
the old Maps app was perpetually stuck in 2007 while Android phones gained 3D views and (much more important) vector maps and turn by turn navigation I don't need or care about 3D view or vector maps or turn-by-turn navigation (although I see how the last one could be useful for a lot of users). I, like most city dwellers, need directions that take public transit into account. I can't believe Apple released an "upgrade" which downgrades such critical functionality.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  The whole point is they may have had no choice. Yes, it sucks, but if they don't have a contract, their choices are very limited.
  - J-H 14y ago
    Then why didn't they move to OSM or Bing Maps?
    - ankushnarula 14y ago
      They're using OSM - as for Bing, they'd be trading one headache for another. The notion that Apple is doing this to take control of a core aspect of iOS seems to make historical sense given how Apple likes integrating and controlling popular functionality into their products.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      Maybe they felt that the data wasn't sufficiently better and that they wouldn't have enough control to make that data better over time. Maybe Bing is profited from licensing the data in a way that would accomplish what Apple wants to accomplish (like the rumored ban on turn-by-turn that caused Google to drop telenav in favor of creating their own dataset). There are few times that I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in Cupertino. This is one time I wish I could have. The discussions and reasoning that went into this decision must have been fascinating because there is no way Apple was thinking, "Maybe they just won't notice". There were undoubtably a lot of tactical and strategic decisions that went into what we see, and being party to that would have given a lot of insight into Apple as a company.
chmars 14y ago
Apple's Google Maps app on iOS had turn-by-turn navigation, only without voice. I used it a lot and I truly miss it. I am fine with Apple developing their own maps service but they should have given a user choice.
- josephlord 14y ago
  You had to manually advance the instructions and if you went off route you had to go back and generate a new route from current location. These are pretty fatal limitations if you are using it while driving although it worked fine for walking. As others have said without knowing the Google/Apple maps contract details we don't know if Apple could have given customers the choice.
gnufied 14y ago
I agree with - we do not know if Apple did what it did just to hurt Google but how about coming clean to its customers. How about saying - "Dear iPhone users, your iOS map experience might downgrade little bit in certain cities of the world after upgrading to iOS6, because Google chose not share their Map data with us. We apologize for incovenience but we are working hard to ensure our own Map coverage improves worldwide "

by arrrg 14y ago

saurik 14y ago

We have good evidence for turn-by-turn, though: when Apple decided "ok, we cave, here's an SDK and an App Store", the contracts with developers had a weird clause saying you couldn't build a turn-by-turn application that was later changed to only that you could not build a turn-by-turn application using the data that Apple had licensed from Google; while this isn't for certain, the obvious interpretation of this is that when Apple built the iPhone they licensed Google Maps but with the clause "the iPhone cannot do turn-by-turn", which got awkward with an SDK, and later got fixed in legalese to specify "we cannot do it, but if someone else independently has data and licenses it, they can".

fpgeek 14y ago
It is worth noting that Google themselves didn't offer turn-by-turn directions until Android 2.0 (October 2009). Interestingly, Google Maps Navigation launched in the US shortly after they had ditched Tele Atlas (owned by TomTom) as a US data provider. It was speculated (though not confirmed, as far as I could find) that Google ended the relationship because it was too expensive/restrictive with respect to turn-by-turn navigation. That makes me wonder if original turn-by-turn restrictions were Google's idea or a requirement of Google's existing contracts. If so, it's obvious Google decided to continue those restrictions for their own reasons and so history has repeated itself.
- DrStalker 14y ago
  Given how much TomTom charged for their navigation app long after GPS stopped being a high cost luxury product I wouldn't be surprised if they demanded too much money from Google.
adnrw 14y ago
...the obvious interpretation of this is that when Apple built the iPhone they licensed Google Maps but with the clause "the iPhone cannot do turn-by-turn" This is from Google's Maps/Earth API TOS: 10.2 (c) No Navigation, Autonomous Vehicle Control, or Enterprise Applications: (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device. - https://developers.google.com/maps/terms https://developers.google.com/maps/terms As far as I know, that clause has always been in the TOS (I looked into the licensing in 2010 and it definitely was in there then).
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  While true for the average developer, I would imagine a deal brokered between bizdev teams would look drastically different than those ToS.
  - clutteredname_ 14y ago
    A valid point, but it is conceivable that a similar clause would find its way into larger licensing/development agreements. Turn-by-turn could have been some gem thy wanted to hold as Google's one-up on any client built using their own API. Truthfully, it would be dumb of Google to give away everything, and keeping turn-by-turn (or even just a broader navigation scope) is something I can see as the ace in the hole they hold onto regardless.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I've said it elsewhere, I think this is a better explanation of the Maps fiasco than saying that Apple thought they could pull it off. We don't know of course, but we do know that Apple suing Google's OEMs has irritated Google's inner circle. So Apple can ship Google Maps without making call outs to Google's servers, and Google has implemented a payment scheme this year, recipe for reciprocity. [1] [1] Ok so generally reciprocity is mutual benefit but I couldn't resist the alliteration.

andreyf 14y ago

the old Maps app was perpetually stuck in 2007 while Android phones gained 3D views and (much more important) vector maps and turn by turn navigation I don't need or care about 3D view or vector maps or turn-by-turn navigation (although I see how the last one could be useful for a lot of users). I, like most city dwellers, need directions that take public transit into account. I can't believe Apple released an "upgrade" which downgrades such critical functionality.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
The whole point is they may have had no choice. Yes, it sucks, but if they don't have a contract, their choices are very limited.
- J-H 14y ago
  Then why didn't they move to OSM or Bing Maps?
  - ankushnarula 14y ago
    They're using OSM - as for Bing, they'd be trading one headache for another. The notion that Apple is doing this to take control of a core aspect of iOS seems to make historical sense given how Apple likes integrating and controlling popular functionality into their products.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    Maybe they felt that the data wasn't sufficiently better and that they wouldn't have enough control to make that data better over time. Maybe Bing is profited from licensing the data in a way that would accomplish what Apple wants to accomplish (like the rumored ban on turn-by-turn that caused Google to drop telenav in favor of creating their own dataset). There are few times that I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in Cupertino. This is one time I wish I could have. The discussions and reasoning that went into this decision must have been fascinating because there is no way Apple was thinking, "Maybe they just won't notice". There were undoubtably a lot of tactical and strategic decisions that went into what we see, and being party to that would have given a lot of insight into Apple as a company.

chmars 14y ago

Apple's Google Maps app on iOS had turn-by-turn navigation, only without voice. I used it a lot and I truly miss it. I am fine with Apple developing their own maps service but they should have given a user choice.

josephlord 14y ago
You had to manually advance the instructions and if you went off route you had to go back and generate a new route from current location. These are pretty fatal limitations if you are using it while driving although it worked fine for walking. As others have said without knowing the Google/Apple maps contract details we don't know if Apple could have given customers the choice.

gnufied 14y ago

I agree with - we do not know if Apple did what it did just to hurt Google but how about coming clean to its customers. How about saying - "Dear iPhone users, your iOS map experience might downgrade little bit in certain cities of the world after upgrading to iOS6, because Google chose not share their Map data with us. We apologize for incovenience but we are working hard to ensure our own Map coverage improves worldwide "