Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Backpedals On Turn-By-Turn GPS For iPhone

Posted by timothy on from the unforeseen-circumstances dept.

Smurf writes "Last October Google's Vic Gundotra announced that Google would bring turn-by-turn GPS navigation to the iPhone: 'However, Google is working with Apple on bringing it to the iPhone, and it's not ruling out licensing the software to makers of portable navigation devices used in cars throughout the world, said Gundotra, vice president of engineering at Google for mobile and developers.' Nevertheless, after such plans were confirmed during a press conference in London yesterday, today the 'Don't be Evil' company backpedaled on them: '"We did not say we would bring it to iPhone, we said to date we've had it on Android and that in the future it may come to other platforms, but did not confirm this will be coming to iPhone at all," a Google spokesperson told PCWorld.'"

37 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Why would they? by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple is suing Googles allies, and is a rival to the Android platform. Why would Google want to help them by giving people a reason to stay locked into the iPhone when they can just get an Android phone instead? What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

    1. Re:Why would they? by walshy007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

      Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.

    2. Re:Why would they? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.

      "Turn left at Main Street"
      "Did you know that Main Street Tires has Michelin XGV size 75R14 on sale? They're the same tires used on all the cars in Palo Vista Productions' comedy classic My Cousin Vinny, now available on Blu-Ray from Twentieth Century-Fox "
      "Oh, you should have turned right back on Elm"
      "Did you know ..."

    3. Re:Why would they? by teh31337one · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google are fighting back!? Good.

    4. Re:Why would they? by eyrieowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which would make sense...if Apple were letting Google do ad sales for the iPhone. But Apple has decided they want to try to keep that pie for themselves as well, what with their new ad program. It's not a stretch to think that they will make it more and more difficult for 3rd parties to sell ads on their platform. Which, were I Google, would make me question the value to providing a new, fancy capability for this competitor that is hell-bent on making it difficult for anyone but themselves to make money on their phones. After all, if turn-by-turn never makes it to the iPhone, Google can offer all sorts of justifications. But once they've provided it, there would be a lot more hue-and-cry if they discontinued it even if Apple's changing business practices made it unprofitable for them.

    5. Re:Why would they? by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The new ad API is specifically for developers to use in their applications.

    6. Re:Why would they? by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google probably just didn't want to use C, C++, or Obj-C. :P

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    7. Re:Why would they? by rinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "google are fighting back"

      Against what for fracks sake?!

    8. Re:Why would they? by teh31337one · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple is suing Googles allies, and is a rival to the Android platform.

      ^ that

    9. Re:Why would they? by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

      Wait, so when Apple attempted to lock you in by banning Flash, did you also ask the same question?

      I'm not saying Google is evil or anything like that. I'm saying that if we're only supposed to consider Google's self interest, then don't complain if Apple or Microsoft or Oracle looks out for itself.

    10. Re:Why would they? by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative

      "google are fighting back"

      Against what for fracks sake?!

      Is that meant as humor? Lessee.. against the rejections of a large chunk of their software suite including latitude and voice (voice, BTW offers the same features now offered across several other iPhone apps that were approved). Against the painfully slow process of getting Apple to update the Google maps app on iPhone. Against the continued taunts of Apples CEO.

      And really, that's just the stuff we see. Google has its own platform, and yet the continue to try to bring their tools to Apple's platform as well, and over and over again Apple rejects them without providing replacements that have even remotely comparable functionality.

    11. Re:Why would they? by metamatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...and the developer agreement specifically prohibits sending device data to the server. That includes the data necessary to measure whether the user actually interacted with the ad.

      i.e. any non-iAd advertising is effectively crippled.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  2. Doesn't that get old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be evil company did this. Don't be evil company did that.

    It's like you are trying to force a contrast between Google and not-evil. Sorry if they're not the knight in shining armor from the land of dreams, but they're still a long way ahead of the competition.

  3. Google should be evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Make turn by turn for the iPhone, but make it so that it directs users to drive off cliffs. Imagine the look on their faces when they realize what just happened!

    1. Re:Google should be evil by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's already a feature on some devices.

  4. Apple's been begging for treatment like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple's behavior towards developers for the iPhone has always stuck me as a "You should feel privaleged to develop for our platform." Think about it, if you invest a lot of time and money into developing for a platform, you expect to reap the rewards of that work based on the merits of your program. Apple has decided that you should only reap those rewards if you conform to a strict ever changing set of arbitrary guidelines that are enforced in a sometimes hap-hazard way.

    Well at some point it will come time to pay the piper. People won't want to develop for your platform if all you do is stand as a barrier to making money. Google got royally screwed over by the iPhone. They had pre-approval for their app from Apple and then Apple had a change of heart. It doesn't matter why it happened, what matters is that it happened. Somebody lost money because of it. And if this happens to enough devs, eventually people will take their time and money elsewhere.

    1. Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know it's popular to bash Apple these days but if you recall, Google gained inside knowledge of the iPhone from their close ties with Apple. They broke those ties and created Droid. Apple denied google's app after that fact. Tit for Tat. Google is hardley innocent here no matter what open platform they develop.

      As to how they treat developers, the rules are posted and any who wander into questionable areas have to accept that thy may be rejected. All to often we hear someone submitted an app that they knew duplicated functionality or violated guidlines in some way then they fain shock when it's rejected. The simple truth is that the App store has millions of customers which is a powerfully draw for a very easy distribution system. Most of the hundreds of thousands of apps are are approved without issue. We only hear about the rejected ones.

      As a final point, there is no pre-approval for apps. I don't know where you heard that but you were mislead.

    2. Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this by HunterD · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A) Google has been developing Android for years. They purchased the company who initially developed Android before the release of the first iPhone. Apple got it's panties in a knot when google finally released it.

      B) Maps is definitely not developed in C, C++ and Objective C, so getting the code to run on an iphone would violate their approval policies.

      C) No sane development shop should be developing on the iPhone platform anyway. When an arbitrary and capricious bureaucracy can kill your income stream at a whim and has been shown to do so on a regular and increasingly common basis, the level of risk there is unreasonable. Releasing an iPhone app is a solid reason for your company's stock to go /down/, as it shows that the management team is reckless with a company's resources.

      D) It always galls me that iPhone users seem to have some sort of feeling of entitlement towards getting everything they want. Google doesn't do /free/ turn by turn for your OS and that makes them evil? Get over yourselves. You are not entitled to google making anything for free for you.

      Google not making a free app that many companies sell for hundreds of dollars on an OS that explicitly bans them from reusing their code developed by a business that has been shown to be highly hostile to them may be the dumbest reason I've ever see floated for them having violated "don't be evil".

      --
      - The unexamined life is not worth leading -
    3. Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google created "Android", which is a mobile OS.

      No, it was created by Android, Inc., which Google later bought. If you're going to be pedantic about it...

      Android is not like iPhone OS in very many ways. It's a competitor sure, but tit for tat is petty childish stuff. Wanting to make their own system because they think they can do better is hardly a sin.

      No, they aren't doing it because they think they can do better. They're doing it because they want to get their ads on the increasingly lucrative smartphone market.

      Saying they deserve punishment for it is, frankly, wrong. Apple approved, then unapproved Google's app because they wanted to make their own (I forget which app it was, exactly, I recall it being a big deal though).

      First off, Apple didn't approve, then unapprove, Google Voice. And no, Apple did not make their own Google Voice app (or Apple Voice app, or anything like that). They didn't approve it because it was designed to replace the core phone functionality of the iPhone, which is very consistent with Apple's previous actions.

      But all that aside, it's extremely ironic that you say Apple shouldn't retaliate against Google for Android, but that Google should retaliate against Apple for not approving Google Voice.

      Rather than compete in their own marketplace, they decided to stifle the competition so their app would be the only option. That is just plain evil.

      Name one such app that Apple has in the App Store that they refuse competing apps for. The only thing they do that is even similar to what you are saying is they don't approve apps that replace certain fundamental functions of the iPhone. This isn't due to competition, but due to wanting to ensure a specific, consistent user experience that has a certain level (to Apple, at least) of quality. You may not agree with their decision to do things like this, but it's worked well for them, and it's absolutely absurd to call it "evil".

      So it sounds like Google has simply said "Fine, if you don't want to work with us, why should we work with you?" What it means is now pretty much everything but the iPhone will have the best free turn-by-turn navigation system on the planet. Way to go Apple!

      Yawn. If the single biggest knock against Apple is that they don't have Google's GPS Nav app, Apple is still coming out ahead in the game.

      Even with all that, Google didn't say they *won't* release their app for the iPhone, and from a business standpoint, it would be counterproductive for them to specifically *not* create one. The reason is that they will be deliberately missing out on revenue. No one (in any statistically relevant number) is going to buy an Android phone over an iPhone solely due to the lack or presence of Google's GPS Nav app. So Google may be able to get a few more ads on a few more Android phones, while simultaneously giving up on a *load* of ads on tons of iPhones.

    4. Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this by node+3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a final point, there is no pre-approval for apps. I don't know where you heard that but you were mislead.

      Is Apple a good enough source for you?

      Um, you're misreading what DJRumpy wrote. He's not saying that Apple doesn't approve apps, he's saying they don't pre-approve apps. In other words, they don't tell developers, ahead of time, "sure, write that app, you are pre-approved and we absolutely will not block it". Each and every third-party app is submitted and reviewed, after it's developed, not before.

      Good job on getting "+5 Informative" while being 100% wrong. Slashdot should have an Achievement for that!

    5. Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem here is arbitrary application of rules. If Google's app was indeed approved as GP says, and Apple reversed their decision based solely on the fact that Google is now competing with them, then it just goes to show that no-one can truly trust Apple review process in any way whatsoever, and all rules they have are just rubbish.

      Except that's not what happened, so it doesn't show any of the things you said it did.

      It's even worse that than. Even if what was said is what happened (it's not), the thing about "no one can trust the process in any way, all rules are rubbish" is patently false. Thousands of developers have successfully trusted Apple's review process, and many of the rules have kept buggy, crappy software out of the App Store (people like to point out the Fart app as a counter-example to this, but consider that the Fart app is the bottom of the barrel. That barrel would have been far deeper without the approval process.

    6. Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And if your entire business folds on a single set of apps on a single platform, you reap what you sow.

      If you are making money on software, you make a commercial decision based on the potential return. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Apple's decision to limit the language you can use (I think it is a little silly to be honest), but you have to work with the landscape in front of you.

      MS did it with DirectX - an interface that was exclusive to Windows. If you wanted your game to work well on Windows, you used DirectX, and of course you did because of the installed base of Windows users. (and ignoring the graphics side of it, since there is obviously OpenGL, but there's more to it than just graphics - it handles controller input and so on, and it's a no brainer to use on Windows - your game will have better performance if you do use it). So now if you want a multiplatform game, you need to run two codebases.

      The iPhone is a similar beast. Like it or loathe it, it has a large share of the market (large enough that writing apps for it as a mobile apps developer is a no brainer), so you work with the restrictions because the rewards are so high.

      The GP was asserting that any company that devoted resources to developing for this highly lucrative market was "reckless" and should be a good indication for their stock price (I guess he assumes all companies are traded on the stock market) should go down because of it.

      I am not advocating single platform development, merely the ludicrous assertion that developing apps for the iPhone was somehow a crazy business decision. Clearly the mobile market is booming right now, which is excellent - with a decent choice of competing operating systems in the iPhone OS, Android and WM. Anyone wanting to seriously make money in that area should definitely be looking at all avenues, even if it does mean your code is not quite as simple as you like - it's only natural that the competing smartphone interests will attempt to differentiate themselves. It may be a crappy move on Apple's parts, but they hold the keys to a lucrative pot of gold.

  5. I'd quite a turn-by-turn guide... by Angostura · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that would help me parse the article summary.

  6. Why not sooner... by Wierdy1024 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't understand why all mobile makers are so touchy about turn-by-turn navigation.

    When you've paid for the map data, and got GPS hardware in your device, it seems crazy not to implement turn by turn navigation, since the added software development cost is pretty minimal.

    I suspect the problem is more of a licensing one - for example, when turn by turn navigation came out for android, it was US only for a while. A hack existed to enable it in the rest of the world, but that was soon stopped by google. Only later did it get released for the rest of the world.

    Considering that it worked with a hack, it can't have been a softwatre issue that was preventing worldwide release - the only possibility is that licensing and company politics was getting in the way. Maybe people like tomtom get exclusive rights to do navigation on map data, and therefore while google has rights to use the maps, they don't have rights to do turn by turn directions with them?

    1. Re:Why not sooner... by jeti · · Score: 2, Informative

      AFAIK there only were two companies that could provide turn by turn information (NavTeq and Tele Atlas). Nokia bought NavTeq and TomTom bought Tele Atlas. Shortly after that, Google fell out with Tele Atlas. That's when Google started its Streetview cars, which also collect turn by turn information.

  7. Houston, we have a problem by h00manist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As much as I like Google for all it's well-built, low-annoyance stuff, I have to admit there is just a fundamental, structural problem with companies - they need lots of income to keep going. I myself run, opened and closed a few... All planetary data being owned by a company is going to be a problem. But it's our own fault for directing all our attention, energy, and monies to companies, instead of community owned projects. For example there is Open Street Map there to prove that we can build stuff we own all by ourselves, no companies involved, thank you very much. Where we get salaries or monies to pay for bills and expenses is a problem, but problems always have many solutions. Open source civil engineering perhaps...

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    1. Re:Houston, we have a problem by stephenn1001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not turn the "company" into an open source one? How about the "Open Source Business Model" OSBM: - Everything is "open": The books, the "source", who owns shares, even the business model/plan. - "Work" is submitted to the "shareholders", and if they approve, then one share is given for each hour worked. - One hour = one share. Everyone's time is equal. - People who already own shares vote on who gets the hours (yes, it is a club, but you can always fork!) - All expenses and "contracted hours" are voted by shareholders. - Each month, the company sets a price where it will "buy back" shares at a specific price (the effective net worth of the company minus a few month's expenses). - The founders can maintain control of their "fork/branch" by not selling in the beginning, and later on have a "salary" by selling their new monthly shares/hours. - If the founders become "corrupt", then the business can always be forked with the goal of less corruption. I know, a very socialist idea. The "1 hour = 1 share" ratio can be changed, but then you are getting into a different issue, which is should some people's time be worth more than others?

    2. Re:Houston, we have a problem by ortholattice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hadn't visited OpenStreetMaps in several years (it was an interesting project, but a little crude and sparse back then), so out of curiosity (prompted by your post) I went there to see how it has progressed. I am impressed! I don't know about how it fares overall, but someone has put an awful of work into Lexington, MA where I live. What most impressed me the most is that it includes the walking trails in the conservation land areas, which Google does not. Compare Whipple Hill on OpenStreetMap with Whipple Hill on Google Maps. (The hyperlinks are much shorter too...) So, finally I don't have to guess when I encounter partially overgrown trails on my frequents walks through them. This project needs to be more widely publicized. I had no idea how much it has improved.

  8. The iPhone is the popular blonde in the room by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whenever anyone speaks in generalities about offering great things in the future, she always thinks they're talking about her.

    "Other platforms" really doesn't mean many options if you're talking about the smart phone market, but it also is not synonymous with "iPhone." I would not be surprised to see Google start to hold back a little on the iPhone development in order to bolster the desirability of the Android platform. They've been giving Redmond the finger practically since the beginning*. Plus, with King Steve talking trash about Android, I wouldn't be surprised if they put a hold on some of their development as a little bit of petty revenge. It's not like there's another turn by turn package that's even close to free for the iPhone.

    *Yes, I own a WM phone and, yes, I'm a little disappointed that several features in the GoogleApps world have not been ported to the WM system (the ability to see multiple calendars - even if only by using tags - is at the forefront; I couldn't care less about turn by turn).

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  9. I suspect... by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

    that it is Apple which has caused this change in direction.

    Google's Android apps are written predominantly in Java. Apple recently made an edict that all iPhone apps must be developed in some form of C (or Javascript, but that's not Java).

    So, Google would now be required to completely rewrite the app. No wonder they're "decommitting."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:I suspect... by Henriok · · Score: 3, Informative

      Android has always been a predominantly Java platform and that's been known since day one. iPhone has never, ever, supported Java in any form (since Javascript is not Java as you point out) and that's also been known since day one. Nothing has changed besides a growing animosity between the companies.

      --

      - Henrik

      - when the Shadows descend -
    2. Re:I suspect... by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Android has always been a predominantly Java platform and that's been known since day one.

      True.

      iPhone has never, ever, supported Java in any form (since Javascript is not Java as you point out) and that's also been known since day one.

      True.

      Nothing has changed besides a growing animosity between the companies.

      False. Apple just decreed that any app written for the iPhone must be written in C, Objective-C or C++. Google has tools that translate Java into JavaScript that runs correctly on any platform. Translating Java to Objective C or C++ isn't a stretch. Apple's *new* policy disallows Google from doing that.

      How anyone who isn't an Apple employee can defend that policy eludes me.

  10. When did Google say it would be on iPhone by LordKronos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you are going to claim that Google said it would be on the iPhone, then you might want to actually include a quote and link for an article that says that. The one included says they are WORKING on bringing it to the iPhone. Come on, lots of people have been working on bringing lots of things to lots of platforms, but they don't always work out. I don't call that backpedaling.

    I swear, this is why some companies feel they have to remain so secretive about everything...because you announce the POSSIBILITY of something and then they act like you promised and crucify you when it doesn't happen or doesn't have all the features they thought it should.

  11. Could you understand the evil part? by Ilgaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Don't be evil company did this. Don't be evil company did that."

    I am one of the crazy people on Slashdot to question Google's "don't be evil" motto ending up -1 several times along with tinfoil hat jokes but I really fail to understand what kind of "evil" to reject sparing time and huge amount of money for a possibly rejected application.

    Google really did good for mobile this time, at least some people from Apple will figure some companies doesn't like to be treated like a potential virus author and porn distributor.

  12. Backpedals? by pj81381 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Clarifies" is probably more correct. The prior article that indicates confirmation of navigation for the iPhone has no quoted text which actually confirms plans to bring navigation to other phones. And the above quote doesn't even read as "we won't bring navigation to the iPhone", but rather "we did not confirm we will bring navigation to the iPhone". I believe this is also in line with prior statements they've made on Google Maps Navigation, so it's not like they're really changing anything.

  13. Is Nokia behind this? by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Navteq belongs to Nokia

    Hmmm the plot thickens. Nokia does have a major axe to grind with apple. If all google maps come from a company owned by nokia you could see them not agreeing to lic them to google for use on apple.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  14. More power to ya Google.. by poly_pusher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a good thing. Apple has recently been bullying their competition, the suit against HTC. Remember Apple was sued over patent infringement on the Iphone. They settled out of court. They aren't even offering that possibility in their suit against HTC.

    The suit against HTC is a semi-passive attack at Google. With the way Apple is behaving, I don't think google should put any of their products on the Iphone. Keep them on Android and continue to grow android as a very open platform. It's why I ditched the Iphone to begin with. A single company developing this kind of regulatory power over a large group of people is dangerous.

    To any of you who for some reason think apple is some kind of enlightened company, you better hope they don't reach a personal computer market share large enough to entice the hackers...

    "But I thought Macs don't get viruses," says the Apple fanboy.