Not sure why people are so offended by the citation from Wikipedia, though. It seems like a bait, but is not - is an actual quote. I didn't make up this text - it is the first paragraph. Besides to me it implies s.o. who knows how to value data made a big company crowdsourcing and also collecting data 24/7 and knew how to sell it.
Or perhaps a company doing crowdsourced navigation is a new thing in 2013? You tell me, I'm just stating the facts.
So I guess this data was either super useful, or it was a way to take some money out from the corpo in a very convenient way. But I can tell you there are hundreds of map companies which crowdsource one way or another, and dozens if not more navigation companies, and none was similarly valued in 2013.
MapBox is valued at 1.2b in 2023, though it's much more influential than WAZ for the whole GIS market (which is 0.8 in 2013 money perhaps). Carto is valued at roughly $350m, TomTom, a market leader is at $500m iin 2025, so you tell my how Waze is 1.2bn at time of acquisition in 2013, having had zero technical or other innovative contribution for the geomatics or gis or web cartography? It was created to avoid road closures in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?
I mean - let's put this in perspective for a moment, and somebody tell me why was Waze priced at 1.2bn if not for its founders and its very useful crowdsourced data.