How Apple's Obsession with Google Is Hurting Apple | Hacker News Reader

How Apple's Obsession with Google Is Hurting Apple

cultofmac.com

177 pointsmhartl138 comments

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.)

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".

...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

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).

While true for the average developer, I would imagine a deal brokered between bizdev teams would look drastically different than those ToS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Then why didn't they move to OSM or Bing Maps?

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.

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.

A couple of points spring to mind: 1) public transit is not a very big advantage. It is useful only in the handful of US cities that have decent public transport. In Paris, one of the great public transport cities in the world, google still doesn't provide public transport information. In 2012. Apple's solution, to rely on 3rd party devs for this has every chance if providing a solution to iPhone users before Google.

2) But even assuming you're one if the lucky few for whom Google provided public transport information, you can still use Google maps from the browser. You can even add an icon in Springboard for it, giving you full access to google itineraries. The only thing that has really been lost is street view.

In my experience, Google Maps' Transit coverage is far far greater than "a handful of U.S. cities". It's worked everywhere I've been in Japan, in Singapore, Hong Kong, Sweden, London, Athens...

The beauty of Google's Transit compared to apps maintained by the transit companies themselves is that it supports cross-company travel.

Cross company travel may not be much of an issue in the longer run, as the transit apps are not restricted to be offered by the companies themselves, so the apps offering an integrated view should win out.

Hoever, planning e.g. a trip from London to Paris, with local transit on both sides, may be difficult.

Not Paris, not Rome.

Found the list of cities. It's massive. It's true no Paris or Rome, but many other cities in France and Italy. http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/transit/text.html#eu

Could it not be said that, "Turn-by-turn is not a very big advantage. It is only useful for the handful of people who are too poor not to have a navigation system built into their car?" It seems like the divide between the "iOS 6 maps suck!" crowd and the "iOS 6 maps are awesome!" crowd is whether a private car or public transportation is the primary method of getting around.

I don't think the iOS 6 Maps are too bad, walking directions have been good. I use public transport heavily but Google's public transport stuff didn't work for my area of England, so you don't miss what you never had.

If by a handful of US cities you mean 500 cities around the world, you are correct:

http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/transit/

Millions of people relied on transit directions from their iPhone every day.

Both turn-by-turn and transit directions are available as 3rd party apps. Transit directions apps are free while turn-by-turn are fairly expensive (though I haven't checked recently). Despite having an iPhone I still have a GPS in my car, and since I started using iOS 6 in June turn-by-turn has become a staple of what I use the iPhone for. Apple is taking a short term hit in order to serve users better in the long term. Though maybe it would have been wiser for them to wait a year before switching. I expect this problem will be solved in 6 months but time will tell.

I agree with this. The blogs mocking 3D view (clearly a gimmick) or missing campus buildings are missing that Tom Tom turn by turn has an incredibly amount of real world knowledge and usability baked in for the larger market.

Apple customers use public transport?

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.

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.

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 "

The historical revisionism among the Appleistas is a bit disconcerting. This is not a matter of the "suits" overruling Jobs' "pirates". Apple's current anti-Google jihad is Jobs' baby. This is what he wanted. Now, it's entirely possible that he would never have authorized iOS shipping with a broken maps application, but to suggest that Apple's current direction is anything other than his idea and his impetus is naive in the extreme.

Here we go again. Other than Jobs tantrum in his book and countless of headlines and blog post, where is this fantastic "jihad"? I see the same level of love/hate between Apple and Google than between Microsoft/Google or Google/Amazon. We just overanalyze it to disturbing extremes, but thats about it.

your comment jihad needs to be reanalyzed.

You are right though. Need to read less in the lines. I do believe Apple is suing to protect its best interests. There is really no other way to protect your product than through litigation.

Are you serious?

What do you call the patent war between Samsung, HTC and every manufacturer of Android phones and Apple besides a proxy war?

I will call it a patent war, not a jihad (I'm tired of reading religious analogies attached to technology, they are an easy trick to perform on the readers mind)

And, you know, there are PLENTY of companies involved in patent wars and we don't routinely position them on the "obsessed against their competition" category. They are just litigious. In some of the examples you mention the Android manufacturers are the ones suing Apple, not the other way around. Are they "obsessed" with Apple?. Are they carrying a jihad against Cupertino, as well?

Totally agree. I work at an eBay Inc. company, and I feel like we announce both a new partnership and a new lawsuit with Google every week. Welcome to the valley.

It's overblown because if Apple were really upset at Samsung they wouldn't be supplying parts for iPhone 5. Remember, according to court filings Apple approached Samsung first to try to settle it before resorting to legal means.

Happening already:

The Korean Times is reporting this morning that "Apple has reduced purchases of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels for tablet computers from Samsung Display amid the deepening patent disputes, said a leading market research firm, Friday. Market experts said that the move is aimed at minimizing its reliance on Samsung parts."

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/09/apple-cu...

At a certain point, Apple is going to run out of partners to piss off.

They have over $100 billion in the bank. With that amount of money, there will always be someone willing to partner up with Apple.

Speculative at best. High density display sales are ever-increasing across the market - it makes sense for Apple to diversify the supply chain. That said, it makes little to no sense to feed your competition purely from a business standpoint. Samsung can of course continue to sell their parts to other OEMs.

There have also been reports that Apple offered to purchase exclusive access to some of TSMC's foundry capacity in order to diversify away from Samsung for processor fabrication, but TSMC prefer to keep their options open. Apple's problem is that only Samsung operates at sufficient scale to be able to guarantee delivery in the volumes Apple needs.

I think you don't realize just how big Samsung is. If you're making hardware, it's not like you can just drop a partner like Samsung because of legal troubles in another department. They are huge, and it's hard to replace them over night.

Samsung corporate is $100bn+ and the mobile is only ~$20bn, so this is a valid point. On the bigger issue here, though, it does seem if apple is being a bit emotional in the whole thing. They are the most profitable/successful company in the world right now. $700bn is insane market cap, its 2-3x GE under Jack welch. They should be 100% focused on kicking ass with product. Buy some map companies or whatever. Spend $1-Xbn on that and they will make it up in marketshare and stock price.

That same emotion drives passion that results in amazing products. I'm not sure you can separate the two.

I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. Counter-example: Look at pro sports. Those guys/gals live off emotion. They train themselves to be passionate, but incredibly focused. When they mess up, they distinguish physical mistake from "mental error". The latter is lack of focus. Wrong thing at the wrong place and the wrong time... Its not lack of motivation, passion, skill, or dedication.

I would call it the same shit that's been happening between almost every tech company since the early 2000s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_wars

Thing is, as much as I believe Jobs definitely was the one to start this(it's his quote after all), I don't think he'd cut off his nose to spite his face.

But would he accidentally erase it?

Well, I don't think the article said that the current problems were once again caused by the "suits" overruling the "pirates". I think it just mentioned the suits and pirates to give a bit of background on what happened last time and why.

Based off what I have heard of Jobs he was more than capable of conceiving of and carrying out a vendetta against Google of this scale, without needing any help from be-suited MBA's. The point is not who decided to go after google in the fist place. The point is; taking it to these lengths is stopping Apple from focusing on what is really important: Producing great hardware and software, that will delight users.

What worries me is that while Jobs was the one to turn the holy war on, he may have been the only one who could have turned it off again. One of his greatest strengths was his ability to believe something incredibly strongly, but then to change that belief quickly (and, at times, mercurially). Jobs's war on Google would have been hot and nasty, but I think he would have moved on to other things after a while. I worry that the remaining leadership at Apple sees this war as their memorial to Jobs, and will take it far further than might be prudent.

I think if he had lived for another five years, he would have made peace with Google like he did with Microsoft.

If he had lived for another five years, apple would have a new product. As it is, we're looking at ipad 8 and iphone 11. There are a ton of smart, talented people working at apple, but no indication of focus or vision. Maybe, after a few years of mourning, apple might be able to do something really new. As it is, all those smart people are going to keep doing what they have been doing. That's ok in most organizations, apple is a race car. It's delicate, fragile, and super fast. Also, it's never getting another oil change. let's see how long it runs until it throws a rod.

> If he had lived for another five years, apple would have a new product. As it is, we're looking at ipad 8 and iphone 11. There are a ton of smart, talented people working at apple, but no indication of focus or vision. Maybe, after a few years of mourning, apple might be able to do something really new. As it is, all those smart people are going to keep doing what they have been doing. That's ok in most organizations, apple is a race car. It's delicate, fragile, and super fast. Also, it's never getting another oil change. let's see how long it runs until it throws a rod.

I am confused but do you know something we don't? How are you so sure that they have no long term focus or vision? As far as the rest of the general public is privy to, the only new products out are the slim 15" MBP and the iPhone 5, hardly enough samples to assert that there is no new product out there and they are only iterating on current products...

Apple is an incredibly secretive company. There were no indications the iPhone and iPad were on their way, either. Apple could have a dozen more products like that behind closed doors and we'd never know (until they start planting vague, conflicting rumors 6 months before release to start the anticipation media storm).

There were in fact lots of iPad rumours and I was mocked at the time for assuming they would introduce a tablet.

Your memory is incorrect.

Very true. But remember, those rumors were steadily coming in for 4 years befor iPad introduction. But it got really worse in the last couple months, and that was when we were really sure there would be an iPad. Right now, we're sure about an iPad mini, but not about the TV thing.

The iOS updates needed for the iPod touch > iPad jump where minimal. It was such an obviously good idea I like many people was surprised to took that long.

PS: iPod touch was released 2007, iPad was released 2010

Didn't Jobs want Apple to work on a car next?

This idea is eerily similar to the way that the new North Korean leader Kim Jung Un wasn't able to countermand the order to perform a long range rocket test, because the order was given by his late father Kim Jong Il.

Why do you think this is Apple's fight? The iOS 6 comes out 5 years after the original iPhone. That's a nice round number and it's highly likely that there was a 5 year contract and Google simply refused to license Maps to Apple at any reasonable rate (take for instance people moving to open street maps instead of Google Maps because of the recent rate hikes). Hell they bought a whole company for what $15 billion seemingly just to sue over patents.

You know, maybe Apple is in the wrong here, but without actual evidence I don't think it's safe to say which company is the greater evil.

I don't fully understand the background/history in this specific scenario, but I would think that the major reason for large non-patent-troll companies to buy patent portfolios is to give themselves some protection & insurance against being sued by others, i.e. some ammunition to counter-sue with.

According to the Appleistas, it still counts as "thermonuclear war" if you detonate the nukes over your own cities. Keep calm and carry on!

(Insert joke about the 3D maps.)

Funnily enough, I was reading just the other day about Edward Teller. One of the weapons on his drawing board was a 10 gigaton bomb, for which the delivery method was "BACKYARD" - as in, it's much too heavy to move it anywhere, so it's employed by blowing it up in your own backyard.

Apple had no choice but to make its own maps. IOS5 already lacked turn by turn navigation because Google would not provide it (as a competitive advantage to android).

So Apple building its own maps it's mandatory. Execution has been sub par so far. But Apple has always been sub-par at cloud services. They are improving but slowly

Thank you someone for bringing this up. I can't believe how many actual reviews (not just meme's poking fun at iOS6 maps) have missed this crucial point. This isn't about Apple trying to somehow hurt Google by rolling its own maps app, this is about Google not giving Apple full access to their maps.

The issue is nobody knows the truth here. I think the more plausible scenario is that Google wanted something that Apple refused to give (e.g., advertising revenue, user data, etc), making it not so clear cut as "It's XX's fault!"

And, they're releasing a maps app for iOS6 now, anyway.

iOS App Store URL?

(There are no indications of a Google Maps app AFAIK but I also hope we will get one soon …)

There was an article on here yesterday that they'd submitted it to the store. I'm not following this too closely other than listening to folks at work bitch about it. (And on HN.)

Just rumour, apparently.

Link: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/20/rumor_of_google_ma...

Will it have turn by turn?

Claim months ago was Google refused to license turn by turn. Reviews of Andriod 4 devices were extolling that feature. Apple needed it, had to build it. And it's frankly not that bad. I find it better than Google's, but notably worse than Navigon. Suspect most normals will be serendipitously surprised by the driving directions.

In recent weeks, I've seen the further claim Google was willing to license turn by turn but insisting on user location data for Latitude.

Yes but perhaps they could have released their own turn-by-turn navigation and left maps on there - just like Google have on my Android phone.

Of course they should have done this a long time ago really.

I've also read that Apple didn't want to provide Google with the information that turn-by-turn feeds back.

But that was in TC comment so treat it with ta pinch of salt until verified elsewhere

Maps-gate, antenna-gate, BS-gate. Every time Apple ships an iDevice, the internet and tech press spin some yarn about a defect in the device, how it isn't a big enough improvement, how it's only smaller and thinner, how it's copying Android.

And what happens... every, single, time? The public buys them in droves, and adores them to the last man.

Apple Maps is both a strong technical flourish, and it's a bold strategy for overtaking the leaders by bolstering OpenStreetMap, and I think that end game is going to work.

Here here. Apple have had plenty of failures even after Jobs second coming (Hello Ping!) and its highly revisionist of the technology talking heads to think otherwise.

I believe Apple could have spent another year on it behind closed doors and not gotten much further than they are now. What Apple Maps needs is right now is users, well, using Apple Maps to help direct locations that need improving (that are not downtown San Francisco or Cupertino).

Not being a native speaker I had to google for it but it seems the correct usage is "hear, hear"[1]. (Just pointing it out in case other people are in a similar situation as me).

[1] http://www.unbecominglevity.com/2008/11/10/hear-hear-or-here...

Dissing apple surely beds for a higher page-view count. I'm sure the problems with the maps will be fixed soon.

Nobody knows the real reason, or combination of reasons why Apple is not using Google Maps. It could be Apple and it could be Google, it could be both. It's all just guesses that are fueling the anger at both sides.

Counterpoint: iPhone is huge in Japan and led a minor revolution in phones here (prior to iPhone non-Japanese phones were unheard of here). Now you can't even get proper directions to some of the largest train stations, including the busiest one, Shinjuku. I don't know how it is in the States, but in Japan this isn't a regression or an inconvenience, it's a total removal of a heavily used feature. I can't think of a better way Apple could have fucked up the experience for Japanese users.

And they were doing so well here, too.

Note that Apple Maps isn't using OpenStreetMap. It's using a combination of a few different sources, mostly TomTom maps.

They are using a combination of different sources, but OpenStreetMap is on of those sources.

Here's a post about what data sources Apple is using: http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3078987/apple-tomtom-op...

I'm afraid the obsession is not on Apple over Google but on the media and blogs over Apple and every single thing they do. Of course Apple will watch its competitor closely, especially since both are now headed in same direction. And of course they need competing services.

Likewise, I'm sure that Google is watching closely every move Apple makes. But nobody in their right mind would say Google has an "obsession" with Apple.

This map thing is a fun anecdote, but I'm not sure how big of a deal it really is. And yes, the maps are worse than the ones Google has develop for the past 7 years -it was to be expected- but Apple didn't have much room for movement here. If you cannot go forward on the current path, and standing still is not an option, the only possible move is take a step back and find a new route. Simple as that. Painful, sure, but it had to be done sooner or later.

Google maps sucked when it first came out. It will be fixed and both applications will improve. I think this is will only turn out two awesome map applications rather than just relying on google for everything.

Really? I remember when I first used Google Maps coming from being a Map Quest user, I was blown away that I could scroll without having to refresh the page.

I remember something very similar - I wasn't even a Google fan then and I remember just not wanting to go back to Mapquest after having seen Google Maps.

Google's interface was revolutionary, but MapQuest had deeper and more accurate data for years.

Also, one search box that intelligently knew these are all the same: "Illinois, Chicago", "Chicago Illinois", and even "Chi ill".

It would suck if it launched today with someone else with a product like Google Maps is today. At the time, maps was fantastic.

> If you cannot go forward on the current path, and standing still is not an option, the only possible move is take a step back and find a new route. Simple as that. Painful, sure, but it had to be done sooner or later.

Of course, they have good reasons to make their own mapping infrastructure. However, working on it does not mean they have to release it before it's ready (and it clearly isn't). They could have used the old Google maps app for iOS 6 (maybe with some surface tweaks), while continuing to work on getting their own maps into some sort of reasonable shape. Maybe they would have had to pay inflated fees to Google or something, but they certainly have the money to do that in the short-term. Of course the Google maps app has its own issues, but people are very used to it; continuing to use it on iOS 6, wouldn't have taken people by surprise or generated such an enormous amount of negative press for Apple.

The other possibility is that they didn't realize how poor a shape their maps were in. If that's the case, it's far more worrying, because it means they're in way over their heads, and suggests that the effort required to fix things is likely to be enormous.

Apple is usually closed mouthed, and tends to adopt a position of "trust us, really, we know what we're doing." Unfortunately that doesn't work so well in a case like this where they pretty clearly don't know what they're doing...

I don't want to end up being the one defending the quality of iOS maps. I've been using it since iOS6 beta 1. There's been a lot of progress and other than the fun mishaps we are reading now, they are functional.

Are they as good as Google? Not even close, especially when trying to search for something specific (I think the dataset is not the problem, the search engine is). But I also wouldn't say that the product is not on a reasonable shape. It's comparable in accuracy with other maps solutions out there.

And we seem to be forgetting that Google Maps come with errors and funny gaffes as well:

http://www.cio.com/article/686778/6_Memorable_Google_Maps_Mi...

They are just the standard, the bar we measure any other map service against. And thats good, because they are really fantastic, but I think it would be naive to expect Apple to launch something of that level of quality in the first attempt.

The argument that Apple needs their own map for strategic reasons is fine, but it doesn't explain why they needed to ship it before it was any good. I can imagine three explanations:

(1) They think they need to start gathering user-generated map content. "Add your business to Apple Maps if you want iPhone users to find it."

(2) An internal struggle at Apple. If the supporters of the maps project thought it was at risk of getting dropped, they might have pushed it out the door to make it harder for the company to back down.

(3) They didn't realize quite how bad it was. Just because customers started finding hilarious problems on days one doesn't mean they're trivially easy to find. With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.

I think "why did they ship the new maps app before it was ready?" is the most interesting question about this whole debacle.

I don't think they actually gather user-generated map content via iOS maps, so (1) doesn't make much sense to me.

(2) strikes me as weird reasoning. If there's a good argument that Apple needs their own maps, enough to justify the acquisitions, it doesn't seem likely that the project would get dropped.

I don't think (3) makes sense: they cut out critical functionality like public transit in directions. I don't see a reason to ship something which reduces useful features unless there was a very compelling reason.

I think the most likely reason was actually pressure of some kind from Google's side.

> I don't think they actually gather user-generated map content via iOS maps

I've noticed my search suggestions changing from one day to another (including misspellings), so apparently Maps does have some form of crowd-sourcing built in.

There's a place to report errors in address information, pin placement, etc. in the maps app.

(4) Google and Apple couldn't come to terms (or Google refused to provide terms), so Apple put some lipstick on a pig and called it beautiful, knowing (1) would happen as well.

As a product manager, I can't imagine a company being that blind to the real state of the product, so I can't believe (3). Maps is too important for phones today to make (2) believable.

Some aspect of (1) could have influenced what both parties were willing to do in my (4) case. Apple may have said, "It's not worth $XXX million dollars for another contract when we are 50% of the way there, and the last 30% will require a shipped product, anyway, to get all the POI data."

> (3) They didn't realize quite how bad it was. Just because customers started finding hilarious problems on days one doesn't mean they're trivially easy to find. With enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.

As a digression: I wonder if the fact that Apple is located in Palo Alto has anything to do with the lack of support for public transportation in Maps? Typically the south bay has a significantly less emphasis on public transport (excepting Caltrain and VTA) when compared to San Francisco. It would certainly be interesting to compare UX experiences of apple devs/testers who commute from SF to Palo Alto vs those who lived close by.

Not Palo Alto, Cupertino, and you might be surprised at how many employees commute by means other than their own cars, but yes, I've wondered myself whether transit directions wouldn't have a had a much higher priority if Apple HQ were located in, say, NYC.

1) In some ways they already do this by collating anonymized crowdsourced data (ex. the overblown debacle over the location cache and the subsequent discovery that they were crowdsourcing traffic data).

2) To my knowledge, this just doesn't happen at Apple for high profile launches like iOS, iPhone, iPad etc. While there are always going to be egos at play in any corporation, the executive team is very solid at Apple and struggles like that just don't get far. Apple demonstrated over and over again that they have no problem killing hardware and software that they feel they must for the sake of progress, or whatever, and you can bet that there's always a team with something at stake when they do that.

3) Given the thoroughness of focus on iOS at Apple over the last 5 years, and maps being a rather major change for a key functionality for iPhones, and any smartphone now really, this seems impossible. What I'm not clear on is why Apple didn't expressly announce the feature as a work in progress, or "beta", that is at the point that it requires real world usage and feedback to bring it up to the standards of, what are now, significantly more mature products.

The Maps app in iOS5 really hasn't changed much since it's launch with the first iPhone while Android, etc. have been able to add features to theirs. My money is on licensing restrictions being the primary culprit behind this and given that Apple's license with Google was up this year, it just seems far too much of a stretch, for the sake of finding any kind of fault in Apple's diamond polished veneer, to assume that Apple had any other intention than wanting to improve the utility of a key mobile computing feature they were otherwise not allowed to do, or were not able to come to agreeable terms with Google when talking about renewing their license. It's unfortunate that it's so significantly lacking in accuracy, but I'm not entirely sure there was much they could do about that before launch beyond removing Maps entirely?

How do we know this is Apple trying to hurt Google? How do we know this isn't Google trying to hurt Apple?

The fact that this sucks so bad for Apple's users and seems to be a net positive for Google would seem to indicate it is likely to be otherwise. The fact that Apple extolled the virtues of its map is immaterial. Of course they are going to do that.

How does google force Apple to ship broken software again? I've forgotten....

By refusing to grant them a license to their map data in iOS 6? or placing such demands and restrictions on the license that it's preferable to Apple to just go with what they have?

Apple had the choice of shipping nothing at all, or licencing map data from someone else.

The "license other" has been covered elsewhere, but do you really believe the current solution is more of a problem for Apple than no maps would have been?

No, but they still had a choice.

Who provided the data for the "Maps" app prior to iOS 6 again? I've forgotten...

An alternative would be no maps, but as bad as the new maps app is, it is clearly better than no maps.

Another option might be licensing somebody else's maps, but we don't know that they didn't try and fail to find somebody willing or find some somebody willing but with, on balance, no better data than Apple currently has (or slightly better but at the cost of another long-term deal that keeps them from controlling this critical part of their platform).

Maybe Apple really did do this out of hubris alone, but, as arrogant as they are, I find that explanation to be the one that requires the most suspension of disbelief.

Let me remind you, then.

By shipping real time turn by tun nav for Android while keeping it out of the Maps app on iPhone.

To be fair though: we could just as well be seeing the results of a contract expiring which to renew Google might have asked for unreasonable terms.

Think of it: the iPhone came out 5 years ago and 5 years is a conceivable contract term, just as it was 5 years for the YouTube app.

When the maps app was initially put on the phone, Google maps was more or less free. Nowadays it is very expensive (a bit better now, but still too expensive for many services out there). Surely not too expensive for Apple, but still.

The best way for apple would probably have been to extend the contract for another year or two to improve their maps service which they are clearly working on for two to three years already.

But maybe it is Google that didn't want that. Maybe they outright refused, wanted to only do it at 10 times the original price for another 5 years or longer, or they might have wanted a patent agreement to stop the witch hunt against android. We just don't know, but the reason for crappy maps could just as well have been Google.

Or as I use to say: why can't they just get along? It would be so much better for the consumer they both seem to put first in their pitches.

This is already becoming a new stab-in-the-back legend: it's not Apple's fault, it is Google's fault. That seems very unlikely to me, but I guess it will just end how it always ends. Apple fans will keep believing it was Google's fault, Google fans will keep believing it was Apple's fault. (Disclaimer: I am a Google fan).

Also, I wonder if Google really was the only player who could provide a maps app? What about Microsoft/Bing, or Nokia? Nobody wanted to play nice with Apple? And why not?

> Think of it: the iPhone came out 5 years ago and 5 years is a conceivable contract term, just as it was 5 years for the YouTube app.

Would that explain why iOS 5.1.1 was never patched to fix the jailbreak?

This was my first assumption as to why Apple had to remove Google Maps / YouTube from iOS. They had a licensing agreement, it expired and Google saw a way to exact some leverage against Apple and the iOS ecosystem.

The only thing to keep me from 100% thinking that is why hasn't Apple said anything? They had to have known iOS6 maps and the removal of YouTube would at minimum play bad in the press on top of the user experience. Why not change the lead story.

The headlines would have changed the tone from "dumb-Apple" to "evil-Google" in a heartbeat.

Apple hasn't even hinted at this yet.

This article makes a legitimate point about the maps application. But I don't get the strange tangent on Google+ — why would anyone expect Apple to anoint the social network of a competitor which isn't even that popular?

It should be noted that Mike Elgan is a prolific user and advocate of G+ with a big following.

https://plus.google.com/+MikeElgan/posts

The only people advocating G+ are tech journalists that have a strong following and like to market their websites on it. It just doesn't have a lot of utility for the average folk who primarily want to engage with their friends and family.

Yeah - to call Google+ the Google Maps of social networking is like calling Smalltalk the Facebook of OOP.

Is that a nested analogy?

Ahh yes, so we are all really going to ditch Facebook and Twitter for Google+ soon? I kinda doubt it

"Although Google+ may have as little as 10% of the active users of Facebook, it’s growing faster than Facebook ever did. And more importantly, Google+ has a vastly superior user experience to Facebook and has a much brighter longterm future, in my opinion."

I would agree with that statement. I look at Chrome for desktop and the almost linear month on month growth for 2 years to become the most used browser, IMO largely because they have placement on Youtube/Google/Gmail pages (and of course a decent product). This growth is incredible when they don't have significant pre-installation and unsurprisingly shows the power of having web presence.

Here is Chromes forward march: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201001-201208

But back to G+, over the short term (1 year) I see G+ getting some traction in the professional environmental, much likes Facebook's college crowd. Longer term (3 years) Google will use their massive presence across the search home page, Youtube, Android, Maps, Gmail and probably books/movies/music to sign people up bit by bit until they reach a critical mass where you may as well use G+ rather than Facebook from a reach perspective. Then you have the tipping point where a few features make the choice difference. And I back Google to innovate killer features and build brand preference over Facebook.

Apart from the merits of Google+ per se, are there any data on how it's doing on mobile? My impression is that on mobile, shorter form media tend to do better, so Twitter's rise seems to be correlated with smartphone adoption, while Facebook is not quite as popular on phones.

From anything I've seen with Google+, its culture tends to be much longer form than Facebook (In fact, I pretty much gave up on reading it because it's such a Pontification Platform that I found it to be too wordy even for the desktop). Are there really people who find Google+ a great experience on Smartphones?

I think a lot of people are missing the point of the article. My take on it is that Apple is, again, losing it's way and the article points out some specific examples. Things like maps and Facebook integration are just the icing on the cake. I just can't shake the feeling that Apple doesn't care about the customer anymore.

With every new OS release Apple has moved toward homogenization of their product line. Soon there will be no difference between what's on your desktop and in your pocket, and I think this is a bad thing. Apple's main strength has always been its ability to attract "makers", however with this new direction I see them turning their back on developers, artists, writers, etc. Maybe that's a valid market and a good long term vision and if so then good for them.

However, for the first time in years I am looking for other alternatives for my future computing devices. And that makes me sad. I've really, really enjoyed (most of) their products over the last 20 years, but I guess like any other company, Apple has run out of steam.

Apple is no way positioned to harm Google in any way on the longer run. In many ways Apple's products are like what video games, music albums and stereos were in the past. They are products with massive hype, craze and cult following of some kind.

Google on the other hand is a massive Innovation factory, churning innovations by the years. No body really is close to them when it comes to search, on line advertising etc. On top of that they have some of the top most properties on the internet- Mail, News, G+ etc etc.

What you are seeing now is Google really flooding market with their other innovative stuff Google TV, Android, wearable computing, self driving cars, offering peta byte scale data analytic engines etc. Engineering innovation is awesome too.

Apple cannot compete with that sort of company. Their best bet is to assume that their cult following will remain and will go gaga every time they come with a new product.

Google on the other hand is a massive Innovation factory, churning innovations by the years. No body really is close to them when it comes to search, on line advertising etc.

I'm wondering a bit about search. The few times I've bothered to use e.g. Bing, I wouldn't say the search quality was noticeably worse, and the emphasis on organic over paid links was... refreshing. When I think back about my search engine switches in the past, they rarely happened because of search algorithm quality per se, but mostly because the previous search engine was getting clogged with ads. That definitely drove me away from lycos, and I seem to remember it also happened with AltaVista.

Google may be unrivaled in online advertising, but to me as a consumer, that is not necessarily a benefit.

Apple may not be positioned to harm Google massively but I don't see that is really their aim.

Google clearly has done and still does some real useful innovation but I think that you are massively overstating their effectiveness on that front.

What is innovative about Google TV? The first version was a shit concept implemented badly and advertised by lunatics. I understand the second version is better but I still don't think the concept is right (I've not used the second version so it may be quite good now).

Android? I'm not saying that it isn't good or doesn't have some innovations but it isn't in a different class to iOS or even probably WinPhone. Can you explain what is really innovative about it.

Wearable computing - toy so far. Do I think that it will be turned into a mass market product in the next 5 years. My bet is no. Also IF Apple was working on such a thing they wouldn't tell the world until it was consumer ready so there isn't necessarily a lead.

On line advertising, peta byte scale data analytics - these are tools used against me as a customer (or am I the product). They are the reasons that I don't use Gmail or want an Android phone. Do I trust Google more than FB - hell yes! But they know too much already from my search patterns, maps use etc. I don't want to give them any more.

I could go down the rest of your list but it would get tedious.

It also seems to me that cult going gaga these days isn't the Apple one but the Google one. There is far more vitriol, anger and negative comments about Apple products than raving praise for them. Your post is not in that category but it shows what I perceive as an unhealthy level of reverence to Google.

I agree that the obsession against Google is hurting Apple, but I also feel that Apple is not the only company with a vendetta against Google. Twitter, Facebook, Yammer, Mozilla, and Dropbox are a few names that come to mind off of the top of my head. One thing that all of these companies have in common is that they had a product, and Google came though (or is coming) with its machine to copy/paste it as a Google product (Android, Buzz, Google+, Chrome, Google Drive).

Granted--That's what Google does; They take a product like search, mail, or maps and make it a lot better. Most of what Google creates up is top notch, but I think that Google may actually be the company isolating themselves from the rest of the software development community in the long run.

Isn't Mozilla funded by Google?

Yes but Mozilla would drop google if they wanted to, they could probably get a decent chunk from microsoft for making bing search the default(I think they use Yandex as the main search provider in russia for a while).

Chrome competes with firefox but mozilla has no beef with google.

yep.

Google Cop/Paste? Lets see: Apple -> Did not invent SmartPhone (In fact google invent smart phone since Motorola is part of Google now). Facebook -> Did not invent Social Network. Dropbox -> Did not invent File Sync.

So how do you justify your copy/paste comment other than hate?

I never claimed that any of those companies invented any of the technologies. I'm just saying that after those companies became huge successes in their respective business segments, Google came though after the incumbents with a goal to gain market share. Android did come out after iOS was huge, Google+ did come out after Facebook was huge, Drive came out after Dropbox was huge, Buzz came out after Twitter was huge, Chrome came out after Firefox was huge, and so on with Search (Altavista/Lycos/Yahoo), Flights (Kayak, Cheaptickets), Offers (Living Social,Groupon), Mail (Hotmail, Yahoo), Play (iTunes), Maps (Mapquest), Talk (AIM, ICQ) etc...

None of the companies that Google copied invented their segments. It does seem that their aim to make each respective Google version of any product better they seem to piss off the incumbent companies. It's all just business and some of those endeavors that Google perused are awesome (Android, Maps, Gmail), and others aren't that great (Buzz, Google+). But in the end, all of the incumbent companies seem to get mad at Google and that's why I think that Google may be getting hurt more in the long run.

I stopped reading when it compared Google+ to Google Maps. Really? By the author's own measure, Google+ is the result of Google's obsession with Facebook.

I hardly got to the article because I couldn't quit laughing at the image at the top! Apparently that was an old painting that an 80 year old woman "restored": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(El%C3%ADas_Garc%C3%A...

It's a very interesting story in and of itself.

Seriously? I found the story to be intellectually stimulating. There's a lot in the news about how the new version can be an interpretation of both secular and sacred themes. I hardly consider my comment un-hacker-news worthy.

From the last 10 years its very safe to assume that Apple would never ship anything like this if they are not forced to. I would bet that its Google that wanted to do this more than Apple. I do not doubt that Apple wanted to move away from Google maps but I highly doubt they wanted to do it with iOS6. This is article is ridiculous to assume that. Really bad.

I agreed with everything up until the strange digression into Google+. I understand why he brought it up, but why go into irrelevant details about it?

While we're on the subject of G+...

>And more importantly, Google+ has a vastly superior user experience to Facebook

Really? Am I the only one who can't seem to figure out G+ at all? I use it almost daily for hangouts, but navigation is unbearable. The lack of labels and use of icons we're supposed to know is irritating. Good luck joining a hangout that's in progress unless you're invited.

G+ may appear to be more clean and chic on the surface, but when navigation and functionality are an issue none of that matters.

The company has also gotten into bed with both Twitter and Facebook on social networking, and doesn’t offer any out-of-the-box integration with Google+.

Twitter integration makes sense for Apple. But Facebook integration does not, as I explained in June.

They are attacking Facebook too. The new social features for photos are a clear shot at Facebook as photo sharing drives much of Facebook's network effect. That's probably also why Facebook are getting in the phone business, as Apple are one of the biggest makers of cameras.

Linking to cultofmac with this sensationalized headline? For a moment I thought I was on reddit instead of hn.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/10/21/cult-of-mac

Sort of like how Google's obsession with Facebook is hurting Google?

I cannot believe I hadn't heard or realised that the Youtube app had been removed! That's insane! Is this common knowledge or has it gone under the radar?

There's a Youtube app in the app store now, it's pretty good, check it out.

I like how you can read comments while watching the clip, you couldn't do that before.

Upvoted, if only for the "infographic" on Google vs Apple Maps. LOL!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com