Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by cooldeal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

cooldeal

>Microsoft got so such pass with WP7 and that was an entirely new OS/platform!

Well, around tech circles, Apple and Google frequently get more free passes compared to Microsoft.

And that's kind of funny because Nokia just put out a comparison with Apple and Google maps to cash in on this hoopla.

http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/09/20/benchmarking-mobil...

View on HN

Nokia acquired Navteq, which was already a top player in the mapping space. For about a year, their horrible S60-based models were selling well because they all had free high-quality mapping apps with turn-by-turn navigation and TomTom directors were shitting their pants.

Then Apple and Google "divorced" while the iPhone was exploding, Google basically stopped improving Maps on iOS (all features went to Android), and here we are today, with the best-selling smartphone falling 5 years behind. Not Apple's finest moment.

>Google basically stopped improving Maps on iOS

incorrect: maps was an apple app that use google maps service. So it was apple that stopped improving maps on Ios

It's fair to say Apple couldn't improve it without help from Google. It's not like they could just switch to the officially-published API and hope Google would let through all the traffic.

Apple and Google had an agreement in place. It was apple that chose not to continue this agreement. Speculation: I find it hard to believe from a business perspective that Google would want to do anything to harm this relationship as the map and map search provider on the ios platform. Being the default service for maps on ios is a win for google. Even if they release an app at this point, they aren't the default which is a step backwards.

There is no way that it was a unilateral decision by either company. Clearly there was some offer (e.g. more money, dropping patent lawsuits against Android) that Google would have been happy with. Or some terms that Apple would have been happy with (e.g. lower cost, access to more API features). It's not either party's fault alone that they couldn't agree about the terms.

Don't forget that Apple and Google is currently playing in the same game, smartphones and tablets. Probably a strategic move by Apple.

Strategic, perhaps, but terrible nonetheless.

Or it could have been a strategic move by Google knowing the work that needs to be done, and that getting up to speed on maps would take Apple years.

this would be the worst strategy ever. So instead of becoming the major search for web and places/location on what would be close to 90% of the worlds smart phones, they instead would give up all the data and being the default search on the ios platform. Theres no way people are going to abandon ios over a sub par maps app.

It was apple that chose not to continue this agreement.

Do you have evidence of this? I find the history of this fascinating and have my own theories (that I've posted elsewhere), but this is a pretty definitive statement that isn't the way I imagined things going down.

from a business standpoint. Google would be the #1 search for browser and places/location on the top two mobile platforms globally equaling to over 90% of the smartphone searches. What possible reason would there be for google to not want to be the default places/location search on the ios platform ?

Depends on what the terms of the Apple-Google agreement were. It's possible it did not include the additional features.

correct it is speculation, but from a business perspective I wouldn't see it as beneficial for Google for them to not allow apple (at one time the most popular smart phone worldwide) additional features upon request. Googles bread and butter is search and data collection. But yes there could possibly be a reason.

Agreed, but we know how poisonous the relationship became after they started warring. It's possible that reasonable contract extensions and expansions became mired in politics.

For instance, when Google launched turn-by-turn navigation for Android they said that it'd be available on the iPhone as well before long. That never happened.

It's not really fair to qualify Apple's entire product as "falling 5 years behind" based on one app. The phone is far more polished in virtually every other way. Maps is important, other things are important too.

I meant to say "in the mapping space". The post originally had a rant about the inevitable full phone/GPS integration being delayed because of these silly corporate squabbles, but I removed it at the last minute.

I'm surprised by how poor this Nokia comparison is. Maybe it highlights the difference of that company vs Apple or Google.

The post focuses on the reach of their maps by showing lots of numbers in a comparison. They would better demonstrate their point with side by side pictures, like the ones from OP of this thread.

Personally, I wonder about the reach of this marketing angle. I take 2 international trips per year. I'm in the same city 330+ days/year. I don't care if the maps work in Columbia or South Africa. I just want it to work well where I live!

> I don't care if the maps work in Columbia or South Africa. I just want it to work well where I live!

So do people in Columbia and South Africa. :)

Indeed it is a fairly Universal attitude that one's own geographical Focus is Paramount.

I see what you did there.

Personally, I'd quite like it to work in places that I'm going to travel to as well.

I'm also in the same city for the vast majority of the year, but I already know how to get from home to work and back.

> Apple and Google frequently get more free passes compared to Microsoft

Microsoft used up their free passes almost 20 years ago now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com