Hacker News Reader

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.

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?

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.

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 "

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.