Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Replaced iOS Maps
tlhIngan writes "So why did Apple decide to ditch the (working) iOS maps app with one based on their own data (despite having one more year to the contract)? It turns out to be turn-by-turn voice navigation. It wasn't a feature in the original Apple-Google licensing agreement, so Apple went back to Google to renegotiate what has become a top-tier feature on Android. Apple wanted it. In return, Google wanted increased branding in the maps app (Apple refused) or to integrate Latitude (Google's FourSquare competitor), to which Apple refused as well. As a result Apple was forced to seek other sources in order to obtain this feature." Eventually, iOS users who don't want to wait for Apple-Google parity will be able to download a native version of Google's maps (rather than a hacked version), but that could be a ways off.
Google wanted increased branding in the maps app (Apple refused) or to integrate Lattitude (Google's FourSquare competitor), to which Apple refused as well. As a result Apple decided to seek other sources in order to obtain this feature.
FTFY.
In retrospect, Apple should have kept Google maps in iOS for another year, and rolled out iOS maps first as an app. That way they would have had time to debug, and get a more graceful market introduction. I suspect that the problem is that Apple did not do enough iOS maps testing in advance, and was blindsided by all of the post-launch problems. Given that this is a safety issue, this is actually a pretty big fail.
If Apple wouldn't agree to the essentially no-cost, no risk concession of more prominent branding why on earth would they render some portion of their patent arsenal worthless vis-a-vis their largest mobile OS rival?
Other than Bing, MapQuest, TomTom, Garmin, iGo?
John Gruber would never post anything negative about Apple or would never admit to them making a mistake.
You don't actually read his site, do you?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Apple was not forced to do anything. They chose to seek other sources because they wanted full control.
From the article:
Apple had plenty of opportunities to improve their navigation app without Google's help. For starters, they could have made it so that the phone wouldn't lock itself when in navigation mode. I can't count the number of seconds I had to take my eyes off of the road to enter my password. Apple: people use this app while operating a vehicle that weighs thousands of pounds - I thought you were the guys that put thought into the user experience of your software. I hope for everyone's safety that this "feature" has been fixed.
And finally, I'm not trying to troll here, but I can't help but wonder how all of this would be playing out if Google had patented every trivial feature of their map and navigation software like Apple does for all of its apps. That would certainly have made this scenario a hell of a lot more interesting.
Of course, John Gruber would never post anything negative about Apple or would never admit to them making a mistake.
Actually he has; but let's say that's true.
So we can pretty much discount his opinion and pure "damage control".
I disagree. That's Apple's response, sure. But Gruber is really digging to find out what is going on, and he does as the OP says have very close sources. Even with the (valid) assumption the report comes through very Apple colored glasses, it still reads as probably quite accurate - can you find a flaw in his timing argument for example? That is a very well reasoned argument for why, if Apple was going to move from Google maps, they had to do so now instead of the exact end of the contract, for all the reasons he mentions.
Gruber being biased towards Apple does not change any of the facts Apple was up against in making the choices they made, which we are getting from multiple sources beyond just Gruber (like Maps contract expiring in a year). The pro-Apple view comes into play more in thinking about the choices Apple made being either good or bad ones, not as much about the facts themselves when we have corroboration from elsewhere.
Do not forget that BOTH companies are attempting spin control on this issue, not just Apple. Google for example wants to distract from Apple shipping 3D maps to consumers in an included map app first (yes they had Google Earth, but it was always more of a side project and not yet integrated into maps on mobile devices). Of course Nokia was ahead of both of them... it's interesting that no-one complained of similar 3D warping errors in that case.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, because if you nit pick the small stuff you can claim to be fair when you apologize for the big stuff.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
You miss the point. Most Android phones have Google Maps preinstalled. Imagine if iPhones started shipping with something else. Doesn't matter if it's a custom Apple app or if they used MapQuest. The ubiquity of such a product would immediately provide significant competition to Google Maps. As an Android user I would love that if it means my Google Maps improves somehow as a result.
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
Generally when one makes a prediction, one sets out the conditions by which the prediction will be measured at the time the prediction is made. e.g. If you make a prediction about phone OS share, then it's a prediction about phone OS share. If the prediction turns out wrong, you don't get to retroactively change it to include other data to make it arrive at the result you want.
Within those confines, you're free to compare and predict whatever you want. If you want to make a prediction about phones, you make it about phones. If you want to make a prediction about phones + tablets, that's what you predict. If you want to make a prediction about iOS taking over the world and displacing Windows, that's what you predict.
There are thousands of different metrics which one could use to measure success. If you're free to pick and choose which one to use after the fact, it's almost a statistical certainty that there will be some metric which supports your hypothesis. That's why all the investment firms advertising their "top-performing funds" are bunk. Whether or not they have some funds which out-performed the market by 40% last year is irrelevant. What matters is how likely a customer was to have picked one of those funds before they out-performed the market.
That's why you need to set the conditions of a prediction at the time of the prediction. e.g. Investment firm predicts that their funds A, B, and C will outperform the market by 40% the following year. If you don't establish these conditions ahead of time, you're just cherry-picking data which fits your hypothesis.
That's the criticism being leveled against Apple supporters. First it was all about the UI. Then when that was matched it suddenly became about size (screen size and thinness of the iPad). When those were surpassed, it suddenly became about market share. Since iOS is a distant second now, it's suddenly about profits. At this point it's obvious to pretty much all unbiased observers that Apple supporters are just cherry-picking whatever stats support their argument that iOS is superior.
This has nothing to do with the conclusion of the argument - Apple products could very well be the best thing since sliced bread. But if the arguments supporting that assertion are this mutable and fickle, their reliability as an indicator of the strength of the conclusion is highly suspect. Statisticians, scientists, and people trying to be unbiased do not simply morph their argument every time it's disproven. They first question the validity of the hypothesis around which the argument was based. Failure to question the initial hypothesis is a pretty strong indicator of bias. Which was OP's point.
The key difference here is that Apple's App Store is your only way to get binaries onto an iOS device. If you don't like Google's Market/Play policies, you can use any of the countless other markets for Android. Heck, you don't even need a market. Just put your Android app binary on any old web page and give people the URL.