4 ms·

I mentioned in a previous comment that I think Apple should just bite the bullet and license Google Maps in perpetuity, in order to preserve the best experience

by kjackson2012 14y ago

I mentioned in a previous comment that I think Apple should just bite the bullet and license Google Maps in perpetuity, in order to preserve the best experience for its users. Let Apple get access to the data that Google acquires via Maps, let Google take all the ad revenues, and fully integrate with Google, and pay them some amount one-time money... maybe $10B? $10B represents 3 months of their free cash flow in a year. It would be the equivalent of Apple making a deal with Microsoft back in 97/98 that allowed them to stop their distracting fight against Microsoft and concentrate on making themselves better. This whole Maps fiasco is a complete distraction to the iPhone, and it's not something that Apple is good at. They are amazing at hardware innovation. This is where their core competency is. Case in point, despite all the negative talk about how the iPhone 5 wasn't innovative, their latest iMacs are amazingly beautiful and futuristic-looking still. Their software is okay at best, but not innovative. Their web services offerings are below average, at best. There is no point in getting into a protracted ground war vs Google when it comes to Maps because it's a distraction and they won't be able to overtake Google. Companies like Yahoo that had way more resources than Apple when it comes to search have tried and essentially gave up. If Yahoo can't do it, how can Apple do it, where hardware wags the tail on their software? Better to keep focusing on maintaining/retaking the hardware innovation mindshare and lead.

arrrg 14y ago
Why should Apple do that? You know what would be the much cheaper solution? Allow iOS users to set default apps (for maps and even other stuff). Problem solved. Google and Apple don’t even have to meet for that, agree on anything or pay anything.
- stanleydrew 14y ago
  Well there is an engineering cost to defining and implementing the interfaces that would make setting "default apps" work. Still probably cheaper and definitely better for users in the long run.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    That cost is really low. Not even worth mentioning. It's a bit of UI in settings, and you're done. It already exists on the Mac and has for ages. We can be stupendously pessimistic about the time and say it would require ten man-years to implement (not likely) and it's still vastly cheaper than licensing just about anything at their scale.
MBCook 14y ago
You're assuming Google would even allow that. Google knows what it's maps are worth, why would they license that data in perpetuity to a competitor for a one time fixed cost? That's basically the argument that everyone has been putting forward for why this whole thing happened. Google and Apple had a deal, and it was up for renegotiation. Google didn't ask for more money, they asked for all sorts of integration and data sharing Apple was unwilling to do (possibly with more money). They knew the position they had Apple in. They tried to get what they wanted and lost their position as the iOS mapping provider. I'm pretty sure if it was just a matter of more money, Apple would have paid up. They certainly have the cash.

arrrg 14y ago

Why should Apple do that? You know what would be the much cheaper solution? Allow iOS users to set default apps (for maps and even other stuff). Problem solved. Google and Apple don’t even have to meet for that, agree on anything or pay anything.

stanleydrew 14y ago
Well there is an engineering cost to defining and implementing the interfaces that would make setting "default apps" work. Still probably cheaper and definitely better for users in the long run.
- mikeash 14y ago
  That cost is really low. Not even worth mentioning. It's a bit of UI in settings, and you're done. It already exists on the Mac and has for ages. We can be stupendously pessimistic about the time and say it would require ten man-years to implement (not likely) and it's still vastly cheaper than licensing just about anything at their scale.

MBCook 14y ago

You're assuming Google would even allow that. Google knows what it's maps are worth, why would they license that data in perpetuity to a competitor for a one time fixed cost? That's basically the argument that everyone has been putting forward for why this whole thing happened. Google and Apple had a deal, and it was up for renegotiation. Google didn't ask for more money, they asked for all sorts of integration and data sharing Apple was unwilling to do (possibly with more money). They knew the position they had Apple in. They tried to get what they wanted and lost their position as the iOS mapping provider. I'm pretty sure if it was just a matter of more money, Apple would have paid up. They certainly have the cash.