3 ms·
What he doesn't answer is why they chose to ship a half-backed map implementation rather than continue to pay licensing fees until they got it right. It's not l
by mcantelon 14y ago
What he doesn't answer is why they chose to ship a half-backed map implementation rather than continue to pay licensing fees until they got it right. It's not like Apple's starving for cash.
- guywithabike 14y ago> rather than continue to pay licensing fees until they got it right It's not like you just buy the data at Wal-Mart -- you have to negotiate licensing terms with Google and the terms that Google wanted were, reportedly, onerous.
- CamperBob2 14y agoGee, that almost sounds like something worth considering before starting a thermonuclear war.
- nivloc 14y agoThat's pretty much what the entire article is about, no?
- mcantelon 14y agoIt's about the timing of the decision, not the underlying rationale for the decision to move away from Google Maps at the cost of user experience. Gruber says only: >If Apple had stuck with Google Maps for another year they would have been forced to renegotiate with Google in a situation where both sides at the table would know that Apple ... had to agree to whatever terms Google demanded to extend the deal Does Apple somehow have less leverage in the past? They can always use App Store gatekeeping as leverage. Perhaps Gruber is implying that Apple's antagonism towards Google's ally Samsung means it will receive unfavorable terms? Even if Apple has to pay a bit more one would think it would be worth it given that Apple has lots of cash and the risk of shipping a poor maps implementation is losing further marketshare to Android.