Slashdot Mirror
Less Than Free
VC Bill Gurley has up an insightful piece on the strategy behind Google's releasing turn-by-turn mapping for free. He calls it the "Less Than Free" business model, and it is beyond disruptive. On the day that Google announced its new service, the stock in the two companies that had controlled the market for map data, Garmin and TomTom, dropped by 16% and 21%, respectively. (Those companies had bought Google's erstwhile map-data suppliers, Tele Atlas and NavTeq, in 2007.) "When I asked a mobile industry veteran why carriers were so willing to dance with Google, a company they once feared, he suggested that Google was the 'lesser of two evils.' With Blackberry and iPhone grabbing more and more subs, the carriers were losing control of the customer UI... With Android, carriers could re-claim their customer 'deck.' Additionally, because Google has created an open source version of Android, carriers believe they have an 'out' if they part ways with Google in the future. I then asked my friend, 'So why would they ever use the Google (non open source) license version?' ... Here was the big punch line — because Google will give you ad splits on search if you use that version! That's right; Google will pay you to use their mobile OS. I like to call this the 'less than free' business model. This is a remarkable card to play. Because of its dominance in search, Google has ad rates that blow away the competition. To compete at an equally 'less than free' price point, Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidize." Gurley speculates that the company may broaden "less than free" to include the Google Chrome OS.
The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
or something...
Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market. Check!
It's certainly a hard deal to pass up for carriers. Is leveraging like this considered to be approaching an abuse of monopoly for Google?
Wouldn't that be more than free?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
So, Google are leveraging their monopoly in search/advertising to break into the mobile platform market? Is this Google being evil?
When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.
Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Or is that "More than Free"? I'd consider getting a free operating system AND revenue to be MORE, not less... but perhaps that's semantics.
It seems like somebody was desperate to write an anti-google story. He seem to be highly suspicious of the carriers for daring to want to compete with the iPod and the Blackberry; than, he seems to be surprised that Google PAYS people to use the version of the Android OS that Google actually PROFITS from.
There's nothing really nefarious here. It's how it was intended to work from the inception.
The operative word being "dominant". Google isn't the only big-time company that obviously throws money at people to use their shit (remember MLB and Obama's inaguration streaming with respect to Silverlight?), but they might be one of the few to actually succeed at it.
Bing is a joke, Yahoo is for 12 year-olds. If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some real competition.
The one thing about Google you have to understand is that they employ lots of very smart people: they employ scientists, research graduates, economists, technicians and business people. They have calculated with sheer intelligence all business moves: they know what they need to do to get the best business and business position.
In short, they are the foundation. Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...
I wonder if they employ psychologists?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
That would make sense if you could demonstrate how they are leveraging their current "monopoly" (search) to dominate in another area (mobile phone OS, Sat Nav). This is VERY different from having a dominant (and convicted) monopoly in one type of operating system (desktop) and then using that to shift into other operating system areas (Mobile, Gaming, etc).
Its the difference between GE and Standard Oil. Being GOOD at different things is fine.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Navteq was aquired by Nokia.
Food: It's whats for dinner
What am I missing?
You're likely missing the bigger picture.
Eventually google's turn-by-turn will have integrated street view imagery, and probably virtual advertisements on the buildings paid for by those businesses (or their competitors)...
Furthermore, as you pass areas of interest, you'll likely see wikipedia articles and user-generated-content (read: pictures/reviews) pop into view (like Google Earth), and eventually google will own your entire travelling experience.
Up-to-the-minute online data about where any police checkpoints and speed traps are would be nice.
It's not anti-competitive. You just don't understand that the business model has changed. What if the new business model is what's described above? Suddenly they're being "anti-competitive" for making that business switch while others are going with the dinosaur model?
Changing the rules and evolving the business model is not anti-competitive. None of those companies will be taking them to court for this, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
You all think it's great that the music distribution model has been turned on its head and that traditional CD sales are going the way of the dinosaur, but can't accept that the same thing can happen in different markets for different reasons.
Traffic. Online maps in many of the urban centers also report congestion and estimated delays.
I've actually run into a few cases where my portable GPS unit didn't know a few roads existed, so those yearly updates are worth something! A more compelling reason, however, is stuff like construction, traffic, etc. That kind of stuff can change on a weekly or even daily basis (more for traffic). Google might not have even implemented this, but it saving half an hour by avoiding a construction zone would be a pretty compelling reason to have an internet connection in addition to GPS.
What am I missing?
Your paper maps only make a difference if you know where you're at when you use them. Aside from that your maps also don't have information about stores, street addresses and the routes that are easiest to use to get you there.
Internet based GPS information is great on a phone since it's taking up no memory/storage and can be updated by the moment for things like traffic flow and road construction.
There is more to GPS than just road maps.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It's only a matter of time before Android takes over top market share for smartphones, the only real question is how long it takes. Now before you start screaming fan boy, bear with me here.
- Android is free
- Android can run on almost any piece of modern hardware, on any carrier (you listening Apple? probably not.)
- Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone, or has one in the works
- Being open source, carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they want
- Once smart phone makers are hooked on free, the only reason to dump Android is if there's a better mobile phone operating system out there that's worth the cost. Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved upon given it's open source. Seriously, why dump Android to pay a per unit license fee when Android can do everything most smartphone users want their phone to do (and more in some cases)?
Some disclaimers apply here:
- No I don't have an Android phone, but yes I've used it enough to be familiar with it (including 2.0).
- I don't think its 100% there yet, but it's not far.
- Apples UI design is definitely better.
I'm sure some will disagree with me, and that's fine. Obviously this is my opinion and a guess. If you're looking for some ammo though, I use a Pre, switched from an iPhone and am pretty darn happy with it.
No it's not. Having dominance in one market is a monopoly. Using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market is an illegal monopolistic activity, in some countries anyway. Using a strategy that gave you a monopoly in one market, in another market is perfectly acceptable though which I think is what Google is really doing here.
ayottesoftware.com
It might be anti-competitive because Google are using their market dominance in one field (search and advertising) to gain market share in another field (mobile phone/net-book/etc operating systems) by paying royalties from ad revenue to carriers and handset makers.
IANAL so I dont know if it is anti-competitive or not though.
...It's bad enough that they crawl though emails to find advertising targets, but the OS is one of their biggest plays yet to analyse every piece of seemingly benign and anonymous user data and assemble a specific user profile. Think about that: one company; the single biggest commercial data-miner knowing many of your details and habits and inferring others. Would they try to extract every possible profit out of that? Personally the last data-mining straw from google was them wanting my mobile number to create an email account. For verification? Yeah right... Wouldn't they just love to add that to the profile.
you are very happy to point out that MS is convicted for abuse of a monopoly position, which is true, but please try not to make it complete fud-style.
First of all, having a monopoly is legal. Nothing wrong with that.
Secondly, MS got only convicted way after becoming a monopoly, AND abusing that position to work themselves into other market. Your comment makes it sound like it's the other way around.
Google can be argued to have a dominant position in search and online advertising, whether it qualifies as a monopoly you will have to ask a judge.
This subsidising of an ad-supported operating system imho does reek of abuse of position in one market (on-line advertising) to push out competitors in another market (mobile phone advertising).
Actually, Mercedes-Benz already leverages Google. You get the turn-by-turn then download it to your car's navcenter. My group was the one to implement this back in 2007.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
Clearly you don't live in iPhone land.
You're not thinking BIG enough. Their stated goal is to monopolise any and all information available and put it in easily indexed electronic form. This includes, obviously, YOUR data, i.e. where you live/work (through IP tracking, gEarth), what you're interested in (Search, Youtube), what you consume (Marketplace, affiliates), aka your net worth, and any means you use to communicate and access data, be it through your PC (gDesktop, Chrome OS), mobile (Android+apps) or any other conceivable device/network.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Less than free as in beer, less than free as in freedom?
No technology is perfect but different users with different needs can decide what works best for them. Amazing concept to some users around here, I know.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Don't be silly.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
All the links to Google and their vast database of search.
For example, if you are out and about and want food you can easily use your Android handset to Google for the nearest Subway or KFC or McDonald's and have Google Navigation give you turn by turn directions to take you there. Or if you are trying to find someones house, you can grab an address from your phones address book (or from a SMS message or email that someone has sent you) and have Google Navigation give you directions.
As others have said, having a GPS that can download data in real time also means you can get up-to-the-minute reports on traffic and construction and accidents and other delays or hazards. This means that the route it gives you is the fastest/best/shortest/whatever route at the time you are driving it (not the fastest route given ideal road conditions)
And with it being Google, customization will no doubt be a feature.
Now all I need is for Google to buy (or create) some Australian map data and offer Google Navigation for free on an Android set in the land down under.
I thought we were talking about Google here, not Apple.
Nope. What market dominance did they need for this?
Please note, kdawson,
The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.
Who's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops. I can't, and ignoring said fact skews the story. Bad editor, bad, bad.
I fail to see the harm. In order for this sort of thing to be illegal, some user somewhere has to come to actual harm somewhere. Instead of paying through the nose for navigation information (much of which is already public knowledge), people get it provided by advertising sponsors like they get their free TV. There's room for free TV and cable also. As long as the other providers provide a premium experience and content, they'll be fine.
Should they fail to provide a premium experience and content, they'll lose customers. Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
In the article he points out that Google wanted to do some things with the data that they didn't want to let Google do. They told Google no. In the old world, where the buyer of that data had no choice that would have been the end of the story. But now, apparently Google has the resources to build their own data and publish it however they like - they're not held hostage by the vendor of their information.
It seems fair to me that if Google takes the trouble to drive a car through and photograph every major intersection in the country, index it against their map, address and aerial photographs, they ought to be able to publish that data any way they like.
In a world where we have monopoly after monopoly leveraging their power to prevent progress, here we have a powerful company leveraging its tremendous market power to cause progress to occur. I think that's fabulous.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
And we'll like it, all except for the tin-foil-hatters.
Embrace. Extend. Beta.
I believe the FireGPG plugin in Firefox may do this (also requires GPG). Of course then you need your keys on the system you use to access your (g)mail, but I guess a USB drive, portable apps, etc. solves most of that.
Ahh, another demand-created "monopoly". I find that concept just fascinating. Apparently in this day and age you can have a monopoly in something even when there are 50 alternatives just because the consumers overwhelmingly choose your product.
Then how do you, as a matter of law, divide between "good" monopolies that just provide the best service for customers and "bad" monopolies that use armtwisting to get ahead?
What about companies that do both to get ahead in a single market?
What happens when a company gets its lead position in one market the "good" way and then uses its power in that market to leverage its way into another market that it normally wouldn't be able to compete well in?
Because that's what our laws against tying are about. I'm not sure that Google counts as a monopoly, but what they're doing is clearly tying. They are using their ad services to squeeze competitors out of the mapping market in the same way that MS used its OS dominance to kill the original Netscape. Mind you, I'm not saying that Google is violating antitrust law (since I know enough about antitrust law to know how little I know), but we're not talking about Google winning the mapping market through just being awesome. We're talking about an unfair pricing advantage.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"People will send things via gmail, I expect, that they wouldn't dream of entering into a search engine."
teenage....midget....llama...transexual....
Microsoft is used to that.
Table-ized A.I.
is essentially "a friend told me...."
pardon me while i call bullshit against your un-cited source.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Japanese are comfortable being bombarded.
Too soon?!?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection, while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.
Everyone who has a recently made cell phone can have internet access.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No it's not. Having dominance in one market is a monopoly. Using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market is an illegal monopolistic activity, in some countries anyway. Using a strategy that gave you a monopoly in one market, in another market is perfectly acceptable though which I think is what Google is really doing here.
Exactly. Google's entire business model is:
1. Find advertisers willing to pay to get ads in front of people.
2. Make a bunch of free services and software to attract people to put ads in front of.
Somehow this is now anti-competitive? Nothing is stopping anybody else from doing exactly the same thing. Google is just better at it than the runners up.
Same with Microsoft in the '90s. Same shit over and over.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
You mean, something like this?
First of all, having a monopoly is legal. Nothing wrong with that.
But there *is* something wrong with that. The conditions of an Efficient Market, upon which our current iteration of capitalism is more or less based, actually demand competition and mathematically prove that both affordability and total innovation ultimately suffer when monopolies exist. Some economists believe 4 companies owning a total of 80% in a given market effectively form a cartel, and gouge their customers automatically; they charge more and innovate less unconsciously, even if they don't communicate with one another, even if they don't know the other 3 competitors *exist*.
Google probably controls almost 80% of search *by itself*. If 4 companies owning 80% of a market can do serious damage, one company owning 70% or 80% is a potential catastrophe.
Google gives us cool things for now, but ultimately their primacy online could be an even bigger problem than Microsoft's primacy in operating systems.
You must be new here.
19 days is pretty good for Slashdot.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
or something...
Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market. Check!
There's a world of difference between what you're describing and what Google's doing.
They're not trying to compete with Garmin. They simply don't consider what Garmin provides to be beyond the category of commodity. It's the open source mindset: things that only involve data are commodities. The valuable work is on the services side either in maintaining it (e.g. Google's Android licensing) or in supporting end-use (e.g. Data Service Plans which the network providers charge).
Close - Intel was paying HP and Dell not to use AMD's chips. Big difference. In this case, Google isn't threatening to rescind payment if somebody decides they also want to use map data from TomTom or some other provider.
The poster meant a working internet connection. (Ie one that actually transfers data) That excludes most O2 customers for a start.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
With all of their phones.
http://europe.nokia.com/explore-services/maps
http://betalabs.nokia.com/ovi-maps
Deleted
Japanese are comfortable being bombarded.
Too soon?!?
I once heard about a famous go-player who was playing an important match in the outskirts of Hiroshima. Suddenly the roof was blown off the building and the go stones were all over the place. They quietly put the stones back, and continued their game.
Apparently they can be quite confortable while being bombarded.
The good news is that Google is a giant, soulless corporation, not a slightly greasy, overweight man who is out to get you.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
fortunately, we are still able to switch it off and still get from A to B. the problem is complete when it becomes impractical to live and work without using the technology you mentioned. at that stage we will have a microsoft-style monopoly.
.doc files using a (non-existent) specification and a text editor.
as long as i can still get from A to B using a book of maps or my memory, i won't need google to plot the route for me and accompany me along the way. it is however (almost) impossible to create and edit
what this really needs to make it horrible is for google to add a function to trace social undesirables and have their positions updated in real time in google maps. then the government could spin it to be the duty of every parent to use google maps to protect their children from drug addicts, murderers and the like.
I'm pretty confident that HP and Dell were actually paying Intel for chips. Intel was then giving them some proportion back as marketing contributions (nothing per se wrong there). The problem came when getting a good discount didn't depend on how much Intel product you bought, but how little AMD. Using this as a weapon against AMD was the anti-competitive element, not paying HP/Dell towards marketing.
In the same way, if Google were to only offer advertising payments to manufacturers who dropped Win Mobile than that might be anti-competitive.
Useless in New Zealand, though...
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
Not to mention - the best map is the one you have with you.
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
Google probably controls almost 80% of search *by itself*. If 4 companies owning 80% of a market can do serious damage, one company owning 70% or 80% is a potential catastrophe.
Does Google really control that much? I'm sure they perform 80% of the searches, but people are free to use other search engines. People choose Google for various reasons, but mostly because they give them what they want. The minute a better search engine shows up, people will start switching.
Well, only private people will. Browsers and others who get money from Google won't, because an upstart search engine won't be able to offer the kind of money Google does.
TV stations have been run according to the same business model for ages. The only difference is that Google's ads are less invasive and a lot less annoying. Google is the first advertising giant I don't hate.
It seems that you are unaware about the recent price war going on between mobile data providers.
Unfortunately, a lot of this comes down to hardware support from cellphone manufacturers. Maemo 5 is open-source, and looks very very cool... However, the only phone that runs it is the N900, which is more of an old-fashion brick than a real cell phone.
I prefer Maemo, because I like to program in Qt4, rather than Java, and there are real advantages to a cell phone that runs Xorg, However, Android has momentum that I think is now unstoppable. If you want to hack for fun, go with the N900. If you want a customer base for your apps, go with iPhone first, and Android second. Long term, I suspect Android will even surpass the iPhone in user base. If you want to own an application niche, now is a good time to hop onto Android.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
In the end, they will even sell "Google thin foil" to you. They will control _everything_.
839*929
The amazing thing about Google is that it's really hard to find any truly anti-competitive behavior. Offering better service and better price points than your competition is perfectly legal. As long as they avoid exclusive licensing contracts (easy to do when so much of their software is open-source) what can they be accused of doing wrong? Price fixing? They offer everything for free. Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Another interesting aspect of Google is that the "less-than-free" business model almost requires a monopoly to work. If they didn't have dominant market share in search-based ad income, the business model wouldn't generate enough revenue to support the "free" ventures and they would rapidly fall back to look more like Yahoo. I can't decide if Google's position is rock solid or remarkably fragile. They're approach to dominating the mobile platform and GPS navigation markets require domination in search ad revenue or they don't make any money.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Yes, and I see no problem with that.. I'm already signing a contract to upload my first born child to them (if I have one) and in return, they will make sure that he lives.. forever...
once more into the breach
I worked for a Data Warehousing company in the late nineties. We had a slew of deals near to close. We took space at a DW exhibition, and invited all those near to close prospects.
Microsoft took a stand, put an MS banner across the backdrop. They didn't send staff, they put no material on the stand.
All our deals went into 'suspend' as a result of that action.
This behavior is called dumping and is what monopolys get in trouble for. Selling something for less than your cost of production for the purpose of gathering market share and shutting out competition. If their name was Microsoft - they would be in court now.
Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar? Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips (the less than free approach).
If Intel was paying them to use their chips, then how did Intel make any money?
Just tried it. Sending a encrypted 7zip archive containing an exe worked without a problem.
Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Could you please show me where the code (and subsequent api call documentation) to recreate turn-by-turn navigation on a non-android platform are publicly available/accessible? I'd love to port this to maemo, but you'll find that Android the OS is open-source, but many of the apps that make it valuable are still closed and controlled by Google. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but I think many people (wrongly) assume that just because Android is open-source they can tinker with not only the core OS, but all of the applications as well. The Android Market is NOT like a traditional linux repository where you "install" your apps from.
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove, it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan.
And who the hell doesn't?
Maps on my iPhone also has to fetch data constantly to show me where I am. This only gets expensive when I'm out of the country, which is why I installed offMaps (which relies on OpenStreetmap) when I went to France. Unfortunately offMaps sucks. So good offline map data is definitely valuable for those who travel abroad or don't have an unlimited data plan, but most of the time, online map data would be good enough for me.
What I really want is map data that updates when I want, and downloads in the detail that I need it in, but doesn't suck.
ChoicePoint already knows all of those things about you and more, and then they sell that data to anyone who can pay. Way more evil than Google.
I remember when using GPS took specialized training and equipment and you were thought of as only slightly less powerful than god.
It saddens me a bit that in the last several years it has gone from that, to any consumer with the will, to the any 12 year old can get a free app that does that on their phone.
Oh well, at least I can still explain how it works in detail, not that anyone cares. Ho hum.
Yes and no. Go out of cell coverage and you might be wanting the non-internet kind.
That said the modern iphone is 16GB/32GB as are the competitors, plenty of room to store a static copy. That would be cool, internet gps that automatically updates a static copy on your phone, and seamlessly switches over to the static copy when out of cell coverage. I'd buy that for a dollar!
Internet GPS is great for urban areas, which is fine for most people, however go off the beaten path into most rural areas, and you might be a bit surprised and unprepared if you think you will have GPS guiding you.
Yeah, the "MS Bing @ 10% market and rising fast" article next to this one somewhat makes their monopolistic moves ignorable (they don't have a monopoly).
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.
Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.
Google will announce early, but it'll be beta so nobody can tell if it will die or go big.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
...Marketers Google You!
Someone already pointed out below that the stock loss also happened on the day both companies reported quarterly losses and THAT may have had a lot to do with the drop. If some of the loss was due to Google's announcement, it just shows investors are clueless--not that Google is not trying to help them along in their cluelessness. Having used a (rental) cell phone GPS and owning both a portable Garmin and a built-in GPS I can tell you there is a world of difference. Google wants you to take an iPhone and mount it on the dash and pretends it will be just like a Garmin.
Nonsense. Screen size is a very big deal here. GPS systems are distracting and dangerous enough without having to put your head forward to squint at the screen. I think they are about a third of the size of a built-in like on an Acura TSX and less than half of a portable Garmin like the 770 (which both N. American and European maps). Maybe some of you with super X-ray vision can see these tiny things well, but wearing bi-focals I surely cannot and I maintain many people are in the same situation. What people need is a stress-free GPS, not one they have to fight, especially in a strange locale, which is the only time you really need one. You already know how to get home, right?
The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything. Do you really enjoy that tiny screen? Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone? Do you enjoy texting with keys that small? Hey, but you can do it anywhere, so you put up with it. It's cool.
And, of course, there is competition and feeping creaturitis. Next up (and this will be a hardware issue): Heads-up displays on the windshield. I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display. Let's see you download THAT from Google.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Eventually google's turn-by-turn will have integrated street view imagery, and probably virtual advertisements on the buildings paid for by those businesses (or their competitors)...
It'd be just my luck to get stuck in traffic behind the goatse fan.
That would be pretty cool and not too hard to implement with sufficient saturation of phones. If a few phones would contact a web server and say, well I'm on this highway near this mile marker and my speed is only 10mph, you could build up a precise and real-time traffic map.
Google has some smart tech guys. But not the smartest.On the flip side they probably have the smartest business folks.
To keep the business rolling--it's the business guys. The tech guys are there to justify spending that invested cash.
Yes, using the term "the whole lot" did sound like I meant that the navigation software is open source when, of course, it isn't. The point is that, unlike Apple and RIM, the Android market is not controlled by Google. TomTom could write an app for Android but they would be competing with the free price point of Google's own app. I don't see that as anti-competitive on Google's part, but perhaps it is a similar case to IE and Windows and the fact that Android is open source doesn't actually change anything.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
And while Entrepreneurs are creating jobs in the society, Corporations are destroying jobs through automation, acquisitions & anti-competition.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
Google already does that with Android
This is win, no matter what the carriers try to do.
It's more than a win. If the carriers try and limit Google's desires in the cellular arena they'll find themselves in the same situation that Garmin and TomTom did. Google can just buy up some spectrum and hang repeaters on every point of presence they have. They already have far more bandwidth into most of America than the cellular providers are using, just to dish YouTube. Make a googlephone with data-only and voip with Google's aggressive economies and lack of telco sense of entitlement, and the traditional wireless providers get a rude introduction to competetive capitalism.
Remember that Google forced the open-access provisions of the spectrum auctions last year, so cellular providers cannot prevent users from using any wireless device they wish, or downloading any application they desire. If the providers try they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of a gang of lawyers. Google could have bought spectrum, and they still might just buy the D-block. The D-block of spectrum, 10 MHz (758-763 / 788-793 MHz) was one national license but the highest bid didn't meet the minimum qualifying bid so it was not sold and is still available. With a little warning Google could probably scratch together $30-40B and bring that home. All the other auctioned spectrum went for less than $20B. The quiet period where all parties are forbidden to discuss the auction ends Monday at 6PM ET. You may expect some interesting press reports after close of business Monday, some of which might even be true.
Google isn't going to force carriers to do things a particular way.
From here it looks like the cellular providers can play with Google fairly, or they can play Googleball which appears to be a much more challenging game.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Yeah, those evil corporations seeking to be more efficient so that everyone can get their stuff faster and cheaper. We should still be doing everything manually. Screw machines and automation.
Clever signature text goes here.
So you need the government (or someone) to interfere with the free market in order to maintain a free market?
Interesting logic.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So you need the government (or someone) to interfere with the free market in order to maintain a free market?
Interesting logic.
Well, sometimes, yes. In some cases government regulation is a good thing. And that is primarily in the case of natural monopolies: think rail roads (you don't want two overlapping railway systems) or water supplies or energy supplies. Here to get a free market the government has to either take ownership of infrastructure or regulate that a corporate owner must give other companies unlimited access (unless technical limits) to that infrastructure for a regulated fee.
Another example is telecom, mainly number portability. When numbers can be taken from network to network the lock-in is gone, and companies can start to compete for each other's customers. Here in Hong Kong this has resulted in very low fees (now starting at as little as USD 4.5 (yes that is $4.5, no typo) per month for subscription including 800 minutes air time, voice mail, etc!). Companies do not like this, they want to lock in their customers. Here the government can create a more free market than naturally would be.
Overall though I agree that governments better keep their hands off; if not they should have a good reason, and in some cases government regulation is a necessity to open up competition in a market.
Google Maps with Navigation (beta of course) already has street view, it actually shows you a street view of the intersection where you need to turn. And thanks to the network connection it also has traffic updates and automatic rerouting around traffic.
As far as updates - my current non-network-connected GPS (from Mio) has map updates available...for $70. I'm sure that high price is courtesy of one of the two map companies mentioned in this article. They probably charge Mio the same for a map update as for the cost of the maps in a new unit. Screw that, when I can buy a brand new updated model for $99 new.
Even only a couple months after I bought it I discovered several roads in my town that didn't exist on the GPS. I've probably found at least 5 or 6 instances of that in the couple years since then, just in my town (Hillsboro, Oregon, in the Portland urban area.) It tells me my work address is on the other side of a main road than the actual location. Etc. There's been a lot of new construction in this area the last few years. I would imagine an urban area doesn't have as many new roads, but a lot of the land here is farmland that is getting sold off as new developments, and new roads here are commonplace.
So I personally am very excited about Google Maps, although I haven't tried it out yet. My current GPS is great, but I can see so much room for improvement.
Up-to-the-minute online data about where any police checkpoints and speed traps are would be nice.
Trapster for Android:
http://www.trapster.com/android.php
They also have versions for iPhone, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, etc.