Google Doubts Apple Will Approve Its New Maps Application

redletterdave writes "Even though Apple's App Store has also been friendly enough to offer alternative mapping applications to ameliorate customers upset with Apple's new default Maps app, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company may not be so friendly as to approve a Maps app submission from Google, which used to be responsible for the Maps experience in iOS until the iPhone 5. On Monday, sources at Google familiar with its mapping plans said the chances of Apple approving a dedicated Google Maps app on iOS 6 are 'not optimistic.' Specifically, they pointed to the lack of any mapping app in the 'Find maps for your iPhone' section of the App Store — accessible only via iPhones or iPads — that use the Google Maps APIs to call wirelessly for location, routing or point-of-interest (POI) data."

Comments

complain

[irving47]

loudly and often.

Re:complain

[cheater512]

Err wrong. Google was more than happy to provide navigation. All they wanted was a little more credit for it and Apple wasn't going to have any of that.

Re:complain

[dracocat]

Yes. Complain once the app is rejected.

Then we can have a good dialog about how Apple did not do the right thing. About how it is unfair, and anti-competetive. I can't wait to have that discussion after it gets rejected.

Only problem is, it hasn't been rejected. How can we have this discussion when so far the only story is that someone at Google doesn't THINK it will be accepted?

Re:complain

[Paradise Pete]

Really? I have seen any evidence of that. Do you have a link? (I'm not doubting you, just genuinely surprised.)

Re:complain

[irving47]

I'll trade the turn-by-turn for an app that can find a restaurant I'm 100 yards from. I didn't capitalize Ruby or Tuesday, so only the other ones in town showed up... Nice job, Team Map.

While I'm at it, I still want an app that will display the other networks and the signal strength in db... Like Mac OS X can do.. built-in if you know where to look. NO, it's a HACKING TOOL. Thanks, Steve. (and Tim)

Re:complain

[Balthisar]

I'd settle for something that shows maps outside of China. I hate having to go into airplane mode, turning wifi back on, turning off location services, and connecting to a VPN just so I can see maps in English (on my US localized phone) and shows sat imagery outside of China.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is almost done and over with. Notice how many more are using Bing search, Bing maps, Microsoft Windows? That is why Google has to promote their own products. Except for Google search and Android, they are nothing, they are irrelevant.

Re:complain

[rtfa-troll]

Google's withholding turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version in order to give their Android platform a competitive advantage.

Since you are obviously intimately familiar with the negotiations, perhaps you could correct my misapprehension. I had heard that Apple didn't want iOS users to have Latitude access or Google branding . Sort of like they do on all other versions of Google map I have ever seen. That would kind of suggest it was more about locking in Apple customers to Apple's own map app and friend finder service than about Google refusing to provide features.

Re:complain

[mjwx]

Save your breath. Why would Apple give Google any face on this? The #1 reason they dumped Google Maps was because Apple didn't want to pay Google's for turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version.

Fixed that for you.

Apple wanted access to Google's data for free. Google didn't want that, so Google asked for money and barring that asked wanted other concessions such as branding or the inclusion of more google services (such as Latitude) but Apple steadfastly refused.

As much as they tried to paint Google as the bad guy, it was Apple who refused to negotiate.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-no-longer-has-google-based-maps-on-the-iphone-2012-9

Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in.

Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.

As much as All Things D tried to spin it, they couldn't get around the fact that Apple refused to give the concessions Google wanted and Google had every right to ask for those concessions as they spent the money developing the service.

Re:complain

[mjwx]

Really? I have seen any evidence of that. Do you have a link? (I'm not doubting you, just genuinely surprised.)

So you've been ignoring this: www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-no-longer-has-google-based-maps-on-the-iphone-2012-9

Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in. Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.

In the end, Apple walked away from the table, the Google offer remained but Apple didn't want to agree to it.

As much as Apple fan sites tried to spin it, Apple chose not to have Google's turn by turn navigation.

Re:complain

[mark-t]

That so-called "number 1 reason" they dumped google maps in favor of their own application is a feature that isn't even available on the iPhone 4. Their 3-d flyover view isn't available on it either.

It seems strange that they would have bothered to even make iOS6 compatible with older phones at all when what was evidently a key factor in their decision to change the OS mapping application will not work on such devices.

Re:complain

[shentino]

This is a case of apple exercising their reserved right to be an asshole.

Part of owning a walled garden is that you get to decide what is a weed and what is not.

Re:complain

[ozmanjusri]

Why would Apple give Google any face on this?

Because they care about their customers and want them to be able to choose the best map application for their own use?

Nah, just kidding.

Re:complain

[irving47]

I honestly don't know HOW to complain to these companies. Their surveys and scripted responses make it impossible to talk to someone that can answer a question or respond intelligently. Exactly how they want it, I'm sure.
I tried to get people up in arms about the Lightning connectors for the new iphones and the authentication needed merely to charge... Several months ago. But slashdot, nor reddit would bother to help get the word out.

Re:complain

[Vintermann]

One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly, is using the power of it to gain a monopoly in a different market. Apple is stepping dangerously close to this any time they disallow an app for competing with iOS built in services/Apple apps. Especially if they didn't offer that app/service before. It's just like Microsoft's Internet Explorer bundling, except MS at least allowed you to install competing products (if not removing their own).

(And yes, I know the standard argument, that Apple doesn't have a monopoly because other touchscreen phones sell better in aggregate. But this doesn't hold because it's not clear that the touchscreen phone should be the relevant unit for monopoly. If I control the world's fish supply, I can't just claim it's not a monopoly because people eat things other than fish. A monopoly in a limited sphere is still a monopoly.)

Re:complain

[shentino]

What you are legally allowed to do, and what you can actually get away with, are often not the same thing, especially if you have a beefy legal department.

Re:complain

[kthreadd]

So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is. I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

Re:complain

[mjwx]

So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is. I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.

Apple wont get the chance to make it work in the long term, they ruined it in the short term. For Apple to get a similar dataset to Google would take the better part of a decade.

First off, Latitude would be opt-in the same as it is on Android, but it gives users the option to use the service if they want.
Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected and who gets it than Apple, who allow thrid party developers to collect information on you without even notifiying you (also it's automatically enabled and there's no opt out). Seeing as I never opted in to Latitude on Android, I don't have to worry.

But nice try to spin it. In the end, Apple shot themselves in the foot.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?)

They wanted to have branding so people would see that app X was pulling google data. Doesn't seem to be all that unreasonable of a request.

and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is

Uh, no that's fanboy spin. Lattitude, IF you chose to use it, and IF you chose to opt IN (not opt-out), would track you. There are plenty of apps which track "every user's location", for example a weather application, but since that's not Google I guess tracking is OK.

I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

Well, me too. They don't want people to use a product put out by one of their main competitors, but frankly this is starting to get into the "unfair business practices" area (at least in my opinion). But Apple isn't concerned about users being tracked- far from it; they just want to be the ones with the tracking data.

Re:complain

[Cinder6]

Yes, Apple chose to reject Google's terms for using their turn-by-turn. Is that really surprising? Why should they be expected to help their biggest competitor? It's not just the Apple fans that like to spin this story.

Re:complain

[Paradise Pete]

Ignoring? I asked a reasonable question. Why would you imply I read that but somehow chose to ignore it?

However, I can see why Apple would not accept those terms. I think long term it was the right decision, and maps have been quietly getting better.
Turn by turn was not even available in Thailand, where I live. Last week I had to drive to some place I'd never been. For several years (long before I ever had a smart phone) I've used a dedicated Garmin box for that. I wasn't able to find the location in it, so I decided to settle for getting driving directions ahead of time using the iPhone. I found the place, got a choice of reasonable routes, selected one and jumped in my car. To my surprise the phone started giving me spoken directions, and the display tracked my driving.

I later learned that Apple had quietly added turn by turn for many countries that were not initially supported. They've got a long way to go, of course, but they're getting it done.

As a bonus, the entire trip consumed no cellular data. Because the maps are vector-based the mapping for the entire trip was loaded before I left.

Re:complain

[Serious Callers Only]

This is Google doing a few things at once:

Leaking this story makes sure the press will notice if Apple does delay or reject the app
Leaking this story helps to explain to users that Google is not the only one deciding to keep Google Maps off iOS.
Leaking this story helps users pressure Apple to provide the Google Maps app
Leaking this story puts pressure on Apple and encourages customers to look at Android

It's perfectly reasonable for them to talk up in advance the fact they are developing this app and will submit soon, given the opaque review process, and Apple's blatant abuse of their control over the ecosystem in the past (banning previous google apps like latitude and google voice for example), which has led to other apps from their competitors languishing in 'review' limbo for months, or having important features yanked (like buying books in the kindle app) because Apple wants a cut of every transaction.

Re:complain

[ohnocitizen]

Perhaps in complaining Google hopes to swing enough public opinion their way to alter the expected decision?

Either way, if there is a perception of unfairness, or a delay in the process, either could be worth discussing. Its like talking about an election before the election takes place - there are insights to be found for those who care to look.

Re:complain

[Namarrgon]

Well, Apple would have benefited too, you see. It's called a business deal - lots of companies do it, even if they compete in some markets. Still, it's clear that Apple felt it was worth spending millions on mapping companies and mapping development rather than give Google any more presence on their platform. Obviously the disagreement wasn't about cost.

It's interesting that while Apple may see Google as a competitor (and Samsung, Microsoft, Amazon etc etc), and may refuse to have anything to do with them outside the courtroom, Google has no problems working with Apple. Google make many iOS apps, they optimise their web services for Apple products, their employees are free to use iPhones and iMacs etc (and many do).

The comparison with Microsoft is also interesting. Apart from the infamous "look and feel" lawsuit in 1994, Apple has been far less antagonistic towards Microsoft than they are with Google, despite a number of similarities in the relationships.

Re:complain

[ggy]

And didn't Opera do roughly the same thing shortly before the release of Opera Mini on the App store?

Re:complain

[Fjandr]

Ignoring? I asked a reasonable question. Why would you imply I read that but somehow chose to ignore it?

Slashdot Rule #5: Anything which can be attributed to malice will be.

Re:complain

[jo_ham]

One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly, is using the power of it to gain a monopoly in a different market. Apple is stepping dangerously close to this any time they disallow an app for competing with iOS built in services/Apple apps. Especially if they didn't offer that app/service before. It's just like Microsoft's Internet Explorer bundling, except MS at least allowed you to install competing products (if not removing their own).

(And yes, I know the standard argument, that Apple doesn't have a monopoly because other touchscreen phones sell better in aggregate. But this doesn't hold because it's not clear that the touchscreen phone should be the relevant unit for monopoly. If I control the world's fish supply, I can't just claim it's not a monopoly because people eat things other than fish. A monopoly in a limited sphere is still a monopoly.)

So what is your "unit of monopoly" in this case?

Apple phones? Well, duh, Apple has a "monopoly" on those, but that's just moronic.

Smartphones? Apple does not have a monopoly here and never has. The best they can do is about 50% which is so far from a monopoly anyone looking at it seriously will laugh at you.

Mobile phones as a whole? See above, but with an even smaller percentage.

I'm not seeing what "monopoly unit" that you seem to want to select to result in *only* Apple being in a monopoly position. Maybe you can spell it out for us?

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to get this straight, Apple demanded a feature from Google that they spent a lot of time and money developing, and didn't like Google's offer for it, and in reponse, they decided they weren't going to let Google's Maps application on the phone?

I've got a better response: return your iPads and iPhones, because this upgrade is a make it or break it for a lot of people.

In my case, I'm in Tokyo and I no longer have an integrated experience with subway times - let alone subways at all!

You think Apple Maps is crap in San Francisco? You haven't seen anything yet.

Re:complain

[Savage-Rabbit]

So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is.

I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.

Apple wont get the chance to make it work in the long term, they ruined it in the short term. For Apple to get a similar dataset to Google would take the better part of a decade.

First off, Latitude would be opt-in the same as it is on Android, but it gives users the option to use the service if they want.

Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected and who gets it than Apple, who allow thrid party developers to collect information on you without even notifiying you (also it's automatically enabled and there's no opt out). Seeing as I never opted in to Latitude on Android, I don't have to worry.

But nice try to spin it. In the end, Apple shot themselves in the foot.

Google is being open about the data they collect? Is this the same Google who got caught circumventing browser security to gather data on user activities? As a Safari browser user I never opted in to Google ad tracking but I got tracked anyway and so did millions of MS IE users. This is all about the ability of soulless Megacorps to track users and their habits in a geographical context right down to the error margin of the GPS system and then profiting from it. Apple would like that data to flow into their own data-mining operation rather than Google's... end of story. It may take Apple a decade to gather enough data but it will doubtless be profitable for them and Google will get some competition so I'm not shedding any tears. There is relatively little I can do to prevent this sort of parasitism anyway. I can, in a way, understand Apple. Voice navigation is kind of a must and if you license, i.e. pay, for access to Google APIs and services a simple "Powered by Google Maps" in the splash screen of your app and the "Help->About" screen should be enough branding, you shouldn't have to wallpaper Google logos all over your app and integrate some crappy social networking system into your app as well as pay for access to maps. Google tracking the movements of every iDevice user on the planet is one helluva bonus without them demanding even more. Apple may have shot themselves in the foot with that maps app of theirs but I can easily understand why they dumped Google Maps.

Re:complain

[bigtomrodney]

I seem to remember Apple and Microsoft owning stock in each other and having a cross-licensing deal.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, Latitude would be opt-in the same as it is on Android[...]

Apple is supposed to be about no ads, like laptop/machines don't have intel/nvidia stickers. Having a new latitude (or whatever) icon present, which I can't remove would infuriate me just as it infuriates me not being able to remove the stock widget, or the notes app, which is craptacular and first thing to get replaced by appstore freebies. I'm actually glad they rejected "adding more features".

Re:complain

[jareth-0205]

Isn't this the problem with the whole model though? You have to make the app, invest the thousands to make it work, and only then, after you've spent the money do you get to find out whether it was a complete and total waste or not. Based entirely on a large multinational's whim.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. So what would happen, I wonder, if Google were to submit a Maps app without TBT? I don't have a car, and don't give a toss about TBT.

Meanwhile, Apple, if you're paying attention: I'm not upgrading anything to bloody iOS6 until I can run Google Maps on it.

Re:complain

[Solandri]

I agree with the reasons you list, and think this whole fiasco is Apple's fault. But there's another possible reason here, one that I think is much more likely:

Google wants Apple to stew in the mess it created by dropping Google Maps. They want to delay the (re)introduction of Google Maps for iOS for as long as they can without letting Apple's Maps app gain traction. But they don't want people blaming them for the delay. They want people blaming Apple. So they make a lot of noise about how it'll take them a long time to prepare the app, how it's likely Apple will reject it, etc.

The reason I think it's the more likely reason is because Google doesn't need to create a Google Maps app for iOS. They already have one - the one Apple yanked with iOS 6. Unless their contract with Apple stipulates they can't release it as a regular App Store app, they could've submitted it to the App Store the day after Apple announced iOS 6. If the contract had stipulated that, I think we would've heard of it by now. The anti-Apple PR from saying "We cannot release Google Maps for iOS yet because our contract with Apple prohibits it, and there's still a year left in the contract." would have been priceless.

They don't even need to delay their app to add turn-by-turn navigation. They can introduce it as-is (as it was in iOS 5). Then roll out an update once they have turn-by-turn navigation ready. So I'm pretty sure the delay in getting Google Maps in the App Store is entirely to make Apple lie in the bed it made for itself.

Re:complain

[beelsebob]

As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.

Hypothetical:
Party A tries to negotiate with Party B to include B's widgetator 9000 in A's iBrick 2014.
Party B says no.
Did party A walk away? Clearly No.

Party A tries to negotiate with Party B to include B's widgetator 9000 in A's iBrick 2014.
Party B says "yes, but only if you give us all your profits from iBrick 2014"
Did party A walk away? I'd argue again, no –Party B's response amounts to "no", just dressed up to look like "yes".

Party A tries to negotiate with Party B to include B's widgetator 9000 in A's iBrick 2014.
Party B says "yes, but only if we get to advertise our gBrick 2015 and track all iBrick 2014 users"
Did party A walk away? More borderline, but again, I'd say Party B's response amounts to "no", dressed up like a "yes".

Re:complain

[beelsebob]

They wanted to have branding so people would see that app X was pulling google data. Doesn't seem to be all that unreasonable of a request.

No, they wanted more than that – branding saying "this is google data" was already present.

Re:complain

[beelsebob]

Google is just playing a cunning strategy... By pre-calling-apple-out as evil monopolistic bastards who won't let their app in the store, there's much much more pressure on apple to approve the app in the state it's in.

Re:complain

[andydread]

Soooo... I see you've never used foursquare on your IOS devices.. /facepalm

Re:complain

[lochnessie]

Google didn't write the pre-ios6 Maps app, Apple did. It just used the Google Maps API.

Re:complain

[mrbluze]

Err wrong. Google was more than happy to provide navigation. All they wanted was a little more credit for it and Apple wasn't going to have any of that.

Honestly, those two are carrying on like a married couple!

Re:complain

[agentgonzo]

They already have one - the one Apple yanked with iOS 6. Unless their contract with Apple stipulates they can't release it as a regular App Store app, they could've submitted it to the App Store the day after Apple announced iOS 6.

Unfortunately not. The old maps app (iOS 5 and below) whilst using images and data from google was actually written by Apple, not Google.

Re:complain

[dmesg0]

Right now they have monopoly on tablets (monopoly is legally defined as more than 50% market share in a particular market).
But I really hope it will change soon.

Re:complain

[Namarrgon]

Indeed, though that was a couple years after the lawsuit, IIRC. And Microsoft sold that stock in 2003, but still produces Office etc for Mac, while Apple offers iTunes and QuickTime for Windows.

They might be OS competitors, but they'll support each other where it benefits them.

Re:complain

[wvmarle]

There are plenty of apps which track "every user's location", for example a weather application, but since that's not Google I guess tracking is OK.

That location info is highly anonymous, not linked to a Google account like Latitude. Big difference. Google can subsequently link those movements to your searches and e-mail contents and whatnot.

Needless to say, I'm not a user of Latitude and will never be.

Re:complain

[whisper_jeff]

Your analogy is stupid (sorry - there's no other word to describe it). Apple aren't selling "fish and there's other food to eat." Apple, using your analogy, are selling "Atlantic Salmon" and there are a) other fish to eat and b) other salmon to eat.

Or, to be clearer, Apple doesn't have a monopoly position in ANY market they operate in. The closest they've ever been to that position was the music player market with the iPod and, even there, they didn't get close to what regulators consider a monopoly position. In the smartphone and tablet markets, while they have strong positions, they aren't even vaguely in the realm of monopoly positions.

And, not to sound snarky, but nobody cares what you consider a monopoly position - all that matters is what regulators consider a monopoly position and that number starts to appear up around 90%-ish and Apple is FAR from approaching that.

If you're a developer and you don't like Apple's terms, you have MANY other options. And that's the way regulators would feel so Apple is in absolutely no danger of facing regulator pushback. Apple isn't remotely close to being "dangerously close", as you put it.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly

You obviously have some trouble understanding what a monopoly is. By your definition, Ford is a monopoly because only Ford can make and sell Ford vehicals, Exxon is a monopoly because only Exxon can sell gas at Exxon gas stations, and IBM is a monopoly because no one else can sell AIX licensing. Apple has no monopoly, no exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. There are plenty of competing operating systems, hardware systems and cell phones, and what amount to package managers and software repositories (appstores)... Apple doesn't control them all, only their own.

Re:complain

[PopeRatzo]

Only problem is, it hasn't been rejected. How can we have this discussion when so far the only story is that someone at Google doesn't THINK it will be accepted?

"How can we have this discussion"? We can have it because Apple unceremoniously dumped Google Maps, one of their most popular apps, not very long ago.

Give us a reason why we should NOT "have this discussion".

Re:complain

[whisper_jeff]

Well I, for one it seems, thank them for giving me a better maps app. Google _could_ have given me turn by turn navigation in their version but they chose not to. Apple's version does.

And it's excellent.

Anecdote time: my sister bought a new place in the middle of nowhere Ontario. I plunked in her address and followed the turn-by-turn that Apple's app gave me and got there without a problem. Had I been using Google's version, thanks to their neutering of the app, I wouldn't have had turn by turn navigation and would have been forced to actually look at my phone on a regular basis (bad while driving in the middle of nowhere Ontario) to make sure I was going in the right direction or, more likely, download another app to get that functionality.

Sorry - Google could have offered me that functionality but they chose not to. I understand why - they wanted Android to be more appealing, but they didn't offer that functionality. Apple now does. And I thank Apple for that.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you tell me why Sony's ebook reader app was rejected at Apple's app store? Why was there an app for the Android store for a long time but not on Apple's store. Discuss that then.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has specific design requirements for its core apps. Namely, they don't suck, they can't suck.

Um, have you SEEN Apple Maps?

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you keep lying about that?

Dozens of people have corrected that slice of disinformation, but here you are, repeating it again?

What gives? What motivates you to lie for Apple?

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Party A tries to negotiate with Party B to include B's widgetator 9000 in A's iBrick 2014.
Party B says "yes, but this is what we want from the deal"
Did party A walk away? YES

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at your phone occasionally while driving in the middle of nowhere is really dangerous to you?
Please stay there, you must be one of the worst drivers in the world. If you were in a city I would agree with you. But the middle of nowhere? If you can't handle a map there, you really should have your license taken away.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

So if Apple want something from Google, that is OK and normal.
However, if Google want something from Apple then "why should Apple help their biggest competitor".
See the contradiction there?

Re:complain

[beelsebob]

So in your opinion, if Party B's response is "yes, but our terms are that everything you own becomes ours", party A is still the one that walked away? I would find it very hard to justify that position.

Re:complain

[DrXym]

You could equally ask why should Google be expected to help their biggest competitor? The answer to whichever party you ask it is because there is money and mutual benefit from doing so. Apple gets a premium map application (and presumably some kind of kickback from Google) and Google gets another channel to gather data from and monetize it. Another benefit only shown after the fact is Apple wouldn't be left with egg all over its face when it introduced its own half assed replacement.

Anyway it's Apple's right to walk away but in doing so they hurt their own brand far more than they hurt Google's.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

so what if it takes them a decade? first of all, apple's maps is *fine* for 99% of users. they also have billions upon billions in the bank which they can use to make maps totally bad ass over the next few years. it probably won't even take them anywhere close to a decade.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to
Settings>Notifications>Stock Widget>Notification Centre
Then switch from On to Off

Re:complain

[jc42]

So basically Google wanted to ... add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is. I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.

Actually, Google's map apps have had this "tracking" for years, and they've been very open about it. We've discussed the fact here before. This tracking is the basis of the Google traffic reports. The folks at Google have explained from the start that this feature gets its traffic info primarily from the cell phones running Google map apps, which uses the GPS data not only to show you where you are on the map, but to report to their traffic-control database where your phone is and how fast it's moving. This info is summarized, and sent to the other phones' mapping software to color the roads green, yellow or red. (And you can turn off this "tracking" by exiting the Maps program. ;-)

One of their frustrations right at the start was that, although the Google Maps app was on the iPhones, for several years Apple blocked this "tracking", so iPhones were in effect leeching off the Google (Android) traffic info without contributing to it. Eventually Apple relented, and allowed the iPhone population to add to the traffic info, significantly improving the coverage and accuracy of the data.

This is a nice example of a "social good". The best traffic reporting system would obviously collect data from all moving GPS gadgets and make it available to all such gadgets. If individual vendors create "walled gardens" and only allow their gadgetry to communicate with their traffic system, then we get a flock of partial-coverage, low-quality traffic reports.

Apple has once again chosen to take this route, by splitting off from the (currently) best such system. If they had our interests at heart, they'd instead be pushing for a common traffic-reporting database shared and supported by all the vendors. Google's approach here could be described as pushing for such a shared, public database, though their holding part of the API private is an example of them trying to limit the capabilities of competitors.

Thus, Google isn't acting entirely in the public interest here. But they're a lot closer to it than Apple, who are clearly pushing for the "walled garden" approach, to the detriment of everyone except their shareholders. In contrast, Google does make their map API available to the public, no matter which gadget you're using.

If the "public" had any sense, we'd be demanding that these companies pool their traffic-reporting resources into a single publicly-accessible system. But the public (at least here in the US ;-) clearly has no sense at all in this matter.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

um, no? that's the opposite of what he said.

Re:complain

[xushi]

"first of all, apple's maps is *fine* for 99% of users."

First of all, where are you basing this hasty generalisation from? Some of the key points in Apple's (Google's) previous maps are gone which make it a PITA and if it were in fact *fine* for 99% of users then I would assume there wouldn't be as many complaints out there as there currently are.

"they also have billions upon billions in the bank which they can use to make maps totally bad ass over the next few years"

I don't want something bad ass over the next few years, I want something bad ass now; Nei, yesterday. We did even have something half bad-ass.

Signed - a 1%'er

Re:complain

[swillden]

Google _could_ have given me turn by turn navigation in their version but they chose not to.

Google has never had a maps app on iOS. It's always been an Apple app.

Re:complain

[gnasher719]

Perhaps in complaining Google hopes to swing enough public opinion their way to alter the expected decision?

One of the points in the App Store guidelines says: "Complaining publicly about an app rejection doesn't improve your chances of being accepted". Between the lines I read that complaining loudly about a rejection will actually reduce your chances of being accepted.

Re:complain

[gnasher719]

Google is just playing a cunning strategy... By pre-calling-apple-out as evil monopolistic bastards who won't let their app in the store, there's much much more pressure on apple to approve the app in the state it's in.

Here's what Apple might do and what I would do if I was in their place: When the app gets submitted, I would publicly announce that we received the app, but we would not even look at it because of Google's statements that they don't expect a fair approval process, which means any rejection would be tainted in the public eye. Only when Google publicly apologises and states that they expect a fair approval process, only then will the app be examined.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

> (monopoly is legally defined as more than 50% market share in a particular market).

Since when, and where? All I can find is things in this spirit:

> In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21)

> Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)

> It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm

Re:complain

[webheaded]

Except that, again, you have to specifically opt into it. So you're not a user...good for you? No one is forced to use the service at all. I don't understand what the point of these comments are.

I'm not a user either, but I don't care that the feature EXISTS. I just don't use it. Why would anyone care about that thing if they have to turn it on to use it?

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

You did not have to use or have latitide if you did not want. Google wanted it to be avialable. Twist the story how you want fanbio, the more you do, the more obvious it is.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

For Apple, visit your local store. Preferably have at least two in the store at all times. If it's widespread enough, it will cause a decline in sales that will be noticeable.

Re:complain

[BasilBrush]

It's not based entirely on a whim. The rules are there for all developers to read. For sure there are edge cases which might be unpredictable, and Apple reserves the right to create new rules when it encounters a previously unforeseen problem. But nearly all apps are accepted provided the developer follows the rules and UI guidelines and doesn't have any serious bugs.

So what do you do if you have a new category of app and you're not sure whether Apple will rule against it? Softly, softly catchee monkey.

Either:
1) You release a version of the app without any potentially violating features. Then once it's accepted, you try updates with the potentially problematic features. If it's rejected, or takes a long time to review, at least there is a version on the store for people to purchase in the meantime.

Or the opposite approach:
2) Submit a proof of concept app. Create a minimal app with the potentially rejectable feature, and little else. Minimal work, minimal expense. If Apple accept it, then you can polish it.

Re:complain

[cheesybagel]

The deal is the same that Google gets for their Android users. So I don't see what your beef with Google is.

Re:complain

[Mashdar]

The argument could be made that salmon is salmon is salmon. The majority of consumers could not tell the difference between Atlantic vs Alaskan, etc. But if you control all salmon, that is a monopoly, even if there is some tuna on the market. The typical consumer could very well tell the difference.

It seems to me that the differences between iOS vs Android vs Win8 are much more than just variations of the same fish. In fact, Apple's patent action enforces these differences. If there is a barrier to OS migration, antitrust action seems possible. In the context of hardware which you cannot run the other OS on, this becomes even more compelling.

A good counter argument might be a movie theater that only sells its own brand of candy. Especially if your local theaters split movies, so certain movies only play at one theater or the other. I think this applies better than the fishes debate :)

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Err wrong. Google was more than happy to provide navigation. All they wanted was a little more credit for it and Apple wasn't going to have any of that.

Google only wanted MONEY from developers using MapKit

Re:complain

[BasilBrush]

As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.

Logically, if Google had demanded the sacrifice of Tim Cook's first born as a condition, you'd still be claiming Apple walked away.

For Apple to get a similar dataset to Google would take the better part of a decade.

No. The data is there, available from third party map companies. Google uses it, and Apple uses it. Apple's initial problems come from the integration of that data. Correcting that integration isn't easy, but won't take a decade. Probably a year for Apple to catch up.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

2560x1600 displays

Re:complain

[davidbrit2]

Yeah, pretty much. And then it was released without incident, and everybody was able to see how glitchy and unusable it was.

Though in fairness, it's gotten a lot better since then, and is actually pretty nice to have around in case of slow connections. It took quite some time to get to that point, granted.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that wasn't first born per se, just an ounce of his blood and Apple walked away. ~

I like your strawmen-building propensity. "Logically", heh.

Re:complain

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Leaking this story obfuscates some of the facts like the reason Google thinks this App will be rejected is because they want to introduce their own mapping API to the iOS. They didn't say they couldn't find any competing apps (that's because there are plenty), they said they (this is from the summary btw):

Specifically, they pointed to the lack of any mapping app in the 'Find maps for your iPhone' section of the App Store — accessible only via iPhones or iPads — that use the Google Maps APIs to call wirelessly for location, routing or point-of-interest (POI) data.

So basically this is Google complaining that they can't promote their own API over Apple's on iOS.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

So Apple goes out of their way to not give the customers what they want out of spite?

No fucking way. They may not change their mind but the only reason is to maintain the walled garden and keep as much home brew as possible. The more the things you do are tied to Apple, the less chance you will leave and the more money they will get. It really is THAT simple. It has nothing to do with your choice or your desire. They are big enough that they can get away with it and they do not have to be flexible at all. Apple mapping decisions may have been a short term fiasco but how many people really ditched the Apple ecosystem because of it? How many more people will be involved or roped into the Apple ecosystem once they have their OWN maps application? Many more.

Listen people, accept it or not, every single Apple business decision, product, application, widget, store, services, and device is to keep you inside and Apple getting their cut. They take calulated risks with each and every one of these. It is not about you getting what is best for you, you are getting what is best for Apple. As time goes on and we are seeing it know, people will accept some substandard or good enough to keep the other services and devices going. Apple knows this. Every company has this capture philosophy, the difference with a lot of them is they are not big enough or have a large enough critical mass to completely lock you in and they know it so they have to be flexible or they do not care to expand into certain areas so they let others fight it out and comptete. Sony is a perfect example. They have a lot of propietary things that no one else cares to use and it fails or is never globally adopted.

As Apple gets bigger and bigger and the locking and in house get larger, the lock-in and in house will get worse. If Apple thought they could pull it off, they would require you to charge your phone using power from an Apple generator through a special 120v-240v outlet in your house wall.

Re:complain

[jareth-0205]

http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/20-classic-apple-app-store-rejections-654230

eg, a chess app rejected because the chat bubbles looked too much like Apple's, a audio streaming app update that is rejected for using "excessive data usage". The fact that updates get caught, and decisions reversed, to me kindof reinforces the whole 'whim' thing.

Re:complain

[BasilBrush]

I'll trade the turn-by-turn for an app that can find a restaurant I'm 100 yards from.

Driver's wouldn't.

Re:complain

[BasilBrush]

monopoly is legally defined as more than 50% market share in a particular market

No it's not.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

Re:complain

[Internal Modem]

Complain to Google about planting false stories in the media? Good idea. The Map+ app that uses "Google Maps APIs to call wirelessly for location, routing or point-of-interest (POI) data" is currently getting 1-star reviews. It doesn't work because Google is blocking the app's access to the API. Why would Apple include a broken app in a featured category (Maps)? All of the speculation about app rejection is FUD on Google's part, when they are the ones preventing the API from being used in the Maps+ app.

Re:complain

[BasilBrush]

There's nothing in your link that contradicts anything I said.

Re:complain

[needsomemoola]

It seems obvious to me that Apple had to break it off from Google at some point anyway. Using one of your biggest competitor's core features as a core features in your own products is not desirable, especially for a company that wants to have full creative control over their products (from the hardware through the software). I imagine if Google had given turn-by-turn functionality then Apple Maps would be delayed, but this missing feature was starting to become a sore spot for them and iOS users.

I think the new management at Apple is a major contributor to this as well. Steve had this Maps projects going for at least a year or two, so it was inevitable. But based on iOS 6's bugs and the recent iTunes release scheduling change, it was probably rushed. They changed the iTunes release to fit a "ship it when it's done" schedule thankfully. If they had started this before, I imagine Apple Maps would have made it's debut in 6.1 not 6.0.

Also, Apple isn't recreating all of the mapping db information, they are sourcing it from companies that have also been doing it for a very long time (TomTom, Garmin, etc...). This should give them a good jump on implementing features they lost with Google Maps.

I've personally had a very good experience with Apple's Maps so far. It's actually been more accurate than Google maps on multiple occasions now.

Re:complain

[dmesg0]

You are right, I confused monopoly with "dominant firm".

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Google makes money on information/advertising and aggregating data. Their web services are their bread and butter. Windows Phone/iOS/Android are all ways to connect users with those services. Google not having maps on every platform hurts them in the end. They rely on all OS's to get users to the services they offer. This is a vulnerability of Google's where they are beholden to OS's allowing their services vs locking users into their competing services. On a PC users could never be blocked from using a service, but somehow smartphones/tablets and other devices are different from their PC forefathers, and all consumer rights are tossed aside. This is why Steve Jobs was so keen on spelling out the post PC era. Post PC meant: Platform lock in, and many applauded him for it.

Re:complain

[EXTomar]

Even with that citation that is odd. Many of Google's apps out of that era were all built in the same manner which were pale shadows of the version on Android. There was controversy when Google launched their G+ app for both Android and iOS where the iOS version was primitive and missing a lot of functionality! I am pretty sure Apple wasn't dictating "Make G+ as crudely as possible" unless there is some Apple plan to move into that app space.

Google apps in the past have a history of working but often were limited on iOS. I have always said "It takes two to tango" where this appears to be a failure on both Google and Apple where neither wins. Apple walked away but Google wasn't trying hard either.

Re:complain

[guises]

I don't think it's possible to have location data that is really anonymous. How many people live in your house?

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly ignorant comment. Google was offering a deal for turn by turn navigation and apple turned it down, in order to keep the iPhone use/location information themselves. Google gains a lot by having iOS users use their maps, it was Apple who was playing hardball and limiting the maps app. If you've ever actually used Google Maps on Android you would know how incredibly powerful it is. Apple could have used the system but wouldn't bargain with Google's requests.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that Apple was trying to protect user privacy?

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+is+Tracking+its+iPhone+iPad+Users+Every+Move/article21429.htm

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-20/tech/iphone.tracking_1_iphone-users-apple-devices-location-data?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-in-ios-6-2012-10

See, Google has an interest in your location because they want to provide you relevant local ads, or provide better maps so that you are "branded" to google services. Latitude is opt-in.

Google tracks you with cookies,login data and IP addresses. You can change these by a simple delete or relogin, deleting your account, or wiping/rooting the device. Bam, you're a "unique user" again.

On the Apple side, they use the UUID, tied to your specific device. You can wipe the phone all you want but tracking data for that device is always connected to that device in a database.

What is Apple's reason for tracking location? Or what was it back then? Why was the feature opt-out rather than opt-in?

Re:complain

[wvmarle]

That's why I said "highly" anonymous. So many things can be tracked down to an individual - but not all as easy as you linking your location to some on-line account.

A weather service would check your current location and send that to a server to request local weather information - but the server can not link requests to your phone without having access to say an IMEI number, or an IP address (which usually changes all the time - lets hope IPv6 doesn't undermine this by assigning a unique IP to each and every phone).

Re:complain

[andydouble07]

Maybe, but you had plenty of people who had no idea that the maps on the iPhone were using Google's data. When my girlfriend updated to iOS 6 and saw the maps change, I told her about how Apple was making their own maps now, and her response was "Oh, what were they before, then?".

Re:complain

[beelsebob]

That would simply be seen as apple coming up with an excuse to not accept it though.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd better check with a packet sniffer, because you might be just pseudonymous, not "highly anonymous".

AFAIK, until recently any iOS app could read phone's ID, which meant you were anonymous only as far as app authors wanted to let you.

Even without this access, app can generate a random uid for you and tack it on every request it makes. Now it can track you just swell and your high anonymity falls low.

And here's what's worst about big data collecting networks: if this weather app's provider is partnered with some other tracking companies and cross-references your activity with other trackers - well, you're at best a pseudonym now or may be you're already linked to your Facebook, Google and Slashdot profiles.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, exactly. If the other persons requirement is too much for you, and you walk away from the negotiation, you HAVE WALKED AWAY.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering this is not an official statement, but unidentified "sources familiar with", this kind of request would only make Apple look childish when Google replies that they didn't authorize original statement, don't even know who said that and whether it was a Google's employee at all.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called the vocal minority. in this case an extreme minority, and you're part of it. same deal as with "antennagate".
everyone i know and talk to online hasn't had any trouble with maps. sorry they don't work for you, but apple will fix them and they'll get better. could they have waited to release it and make it perfect? well, maybe, but i'm sure they had reasons for wanting to get it out the door, and again, it's fine for *most people*. you can use dozens of other maps apps in the mean time.

tl;dr: IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. get over it and use OTHER map apps for a couple months while apple fixes maps. sheesh.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't know HOW to complain to these companies

I do.

I heard the iPhone would require people to use one particular repository, and that repository had a shitload of totally bizarre and arbitrary restrictions, where someone-who-isn't-the-user gets to decide what users do with their own PC.

So I complained, by abstaining from giving money to Apple. I doubt Apple heard me, but that's the nature of isolated anomalous complaints. It depends on how many people complain. Are you complaining, or are you praising? You're doing one or the other...

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

That location info is highly anonymous, not linked to a Google account like Latitude. Big difference.

How do you know? How can anyone outside of Apple know. We know how Google works.

Do you have data, raw feed, packet inspection, a link to any of those things, anything to back up your supposition?

Re:complain

[cyberjock1980]

How about devices using iOS? I think this is a great analogy since Microsoft got smacked for Windows with internet browsers(basically an app with the operating system), and Apple could potentially get smacked for iOS with mapping applications(again, an app with an operating system).

Re:complain

[flink]

Apple is supposed to be about no ads, like laptop/machines don't have intel/nvidia stickers.

You're kidding right? My first iPhone had a Nike-branded pedometer app built in that couldn't be uninstalled, only hidden.

Re:complain

[StuartHankins]

I thought at first that the Apple Maps would be a big deal. I mean, I'd heard about it *everywhere*, so surely it would be a huge step backward.

But you know what? I'm sure it affects somebody, but it works fine for me. Until it becomes a problem for me I don't really care. And Google? I don't trust them as much as I trust Apple, so there you go. Apple just doesn't have that level of personal info on me and Google does. I don't want *any* single company to have so much it's dangerous.

tl;dr? Apple Maps works for me, sorry you're upset but not so sorry I will lose any sleep over it.

Re:complain

[Sandor at the Zoo]

All they wanted was indicates a little bias towards Google's position.

It takes two to make a deal. Google and Apple couldn't agree on terms, so there was no deal. It's that simple.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

My only complaint is that Apple didn't get rid of Google sooner. Happy days are here now that I have a phone free of any Googleware.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is supposed to be about no ads, like laptop/machines don't have intel/nvidia stickers.

L-Oh-Fucking-L. What about that big shiny metal fruit stamped on everything? Like you're not hit by branding every time you boot the device, or plug it into your computer and it launches itunes.

The reasons Apple doesn't allow other brand logos:

1) It may interfere with their brand name. If it's just Apple it's less confusing. Same reason they invented a one button mouse, a two button phone, and a video editing app with one button. They think you are confused when there is more than one of something.

2) comparison shopping. Say you have an I-5 intel laptop pc, and an i-5 macbook. both have nvidia cards. Guess which one is going to be more expensive? 90% of consumers wouldn't know what I'm talking about here, but they're just eliminating the other 10% from finding out that a "superior" macbook is just a PC with minimally modified (driver flags, bios, connectors) parts.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple Maps was AN INSIDE JOB!!! Wake up sheeple!

Re:complain

[jo_ham]

2560x1600 displays

Dell will happily sell you a 2560x1600 display, as will many other vendors. All of them made by the same source of course.

Re:complain

[Bodero]

They wanted to have branding so people would see that app X was pulling google data. Doesn't seem to be all that unreasonable of a request.

Yet the world was up in arms over Verizon Wireless' suggestion, when news of the AT&T-only iPhone was revealed, that one of the reasons they passed on it was that they wanted carrier branding as they've enjoyed on every device in the past.

Apple doesn't promote other brands. You won't find an Intel sticker on a MacBook Pro, you won't find a Verizon/AT&T/Sprint sticker on an iPhone, and you won't find a Google logo on the Maps app. Period.

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm doing more than that...I'm witholding my money.

I have an iPhone 4 that needs to be replaced. I've yet to upgrade it to iOS 6 since I prefer the old Maps app to Apple's. I'm doing nothing until Google finishes their iOS maps app. If Apple approves it, I'll buy the new iPhone and happily use Google's maps app. If Apple doesn't approve it, I'll get a Galaxy S3.

Not that anyone from Apple is reading this, but in case they are, Maps is a deal-breaker for me. I will be using Google Maps on my next phone. I'd prefer that it be an iPhone, but that's up to Apple.

Re:complain

[jo_ham]

How about devices using iOS? I think this is a great analogy since Microsoft got smacked for Windows with internet browsers(basically an app with the operating system), and Apple could potentially get smacked for iOS with mapping applications(again, an app with an operating system).

Well, that's the same as saying "Ford has a monopoly on cars branded 'Ford'" or "Microsoft has a monopoly on XBox Live".

Apple cannot be smacked for iOS with mapping applications because iOS is not in a monopoly position. It only runs on Apple products, but that is not the same thing. The consumer has a choice of other smartphones.

Windows in the 90s was a special case, since it held a monopoly position in the OS market. Yes, there were other options (like OS/2) but they were not practical competitors to the Windows ecosystem in the same way that Android is to iOS now.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected

Gee, considering Google buys most of the data, you sure trust them a lot buy buying their "we collected the data" bit.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

The deal is the same that Google gets for their Android users. So I don't see what your beef with Google is.

The fact the Android users sell their soul to Google doesn't mean Apple should do that for their customers.

Re:complain

[scot4875]

I would find it very hard to justify that position.

So would any reasonable person. However, the unreasonable position you described is nothing like the reality of the situation.

--Jeremy

Re:complain

[scot4875]

Logically, if Google had demanded the sacrifice of Tim Cook's first born as a condition, you'd still be claiming Apple walked away.

Logically, that's a strawman argument.

Quit white knighting for Apple. They don't give a shit about you.

--Jeremy

Re:complain

[Anonymous Coward]

I will type slowly since you seem to be a little thick.

The old Maps app was *NOT* a google app. It was the default, built-in apple map that used google for backend data.
With iOS six the new built in a default map app, with overall better features, but a different back end for the data (which has, issues).

This has been brewing for a while, and google is stupid for not seeing it coming. They should have written they're own iOS app
way before now - and had it submitted immediately. Then if it wasn't approved they could complain.

As it is now, they *still* haven't completed it, but somehow even though it isn't submitted they still whinge about how
*they* *think* it wouldn't be approved, based solely on not finding something somewhere?

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

Ignoring? I asked a reasonable question. Why would you imply I read that but somehow chose to ignore it?

Slashdot Rule #5: Anything which can be attributed to malice will be.

Slashdot Rule #5b: Anything which must be attributed to one's own stupidity will be attributed to the malice of others.

Re:complain

[PopeRatzo]

This has been brewing for a while, and google is stupid for not seeing it coming.

You're right, Google should have known that Apple would gladly screw its own customers in order to try to bully their way into a bigger share.

Re:complain

[cheater512]

In addition to what other posters have posted, Apple's contract with Google still had a year left on it.
They are still paying for Google Maps even though they aren't using it.

Re:complain

[quacking duck]

I updated to iOS6 a week after its release, knowing full well the new Maps wasn't as good in some areas as the previous Google-based Maps. I figured I'd rather be part of the solution and helping to improve/fix it, instead of just complaining about something I had no experience with.

iOS Maps (I won't call them Apple maps until they're at least available on the Mac) has problems, and differences Apple just plain didn't prepare us well for. IMHO there's too much emphasis on business results over official place/street names, with no option to set preference for which one you want more of. That's fine if you're using it strictly as a navigation and get-me-to-business-X aid, sucks if you're doing a little exploring. It can't find the actual Mount Everest for crying out loud, even when the view is over Asia.

However, having used it, it was NOT as bad as the internet echo chamber would have you believe. Non-techy friends are getting used to it, and the longer Google waits to even submit the app, the less people will miss it.

Not to say an official Google Maps app won't be downloaded millions of times if and when it's approved by Apple--the official Youtube app is the most downloaded free app last I checked. But despite the growing pains, I'm already used to the pros and cons of iOS Maps, and a Google Maps app will be relegated to a backup app (e.g. for Street View or walking/bike trails) unless Google throws in something really amazing. Having played a bit with maps on Android, there's nothing yet that qualifies.

Re:complain

[quacking duck]

*Supposed* to be still applies. No carrier logos or carrier bloatware that may detract from user experience, nor Intel/nvidia stickers like GP said.

There may be the odd exception, but that's what they are--exceptions.

Re:complain

[Just Some Guy]

I tried to get people up in arms about the Lightning connectors for the new iphones and the authentication needed merely to charge... Several months ago. But slashdot, nor reddit would bother to help get the word out.

There weren't any viable standard charging plugs that could deliver the needed power requirements to everything from an iPod Nano to an iPad 3, so Apple made one. Micro USB isn't rated for iPad 3's power draw so they went with something else (and something I find vastly better from a UI perspective than any USB plug format ever has been), then set that as their new company standard so that you can use the same cables with all their stuff.

To paraphrase: Slashdot is not your personal army. Maybe it's not that Slashdot and Reddit were being lazy or trying to silence you, but that many readers just don't agree with you in the first place.

Re:complain

[quacking duck]

A beefy legal department didn't prevent the DOJ from spanking Microsoft. It took a change in government to do that.

An article earlier this year noted that Apple has virtually no presence (e.g. lobbyists) in Washington. Some government bureaucrats were quoted saying this will probably hurt them.

Re:complain

[Just Some Guy]

In the end, Apple walked away from the table, the Google offer remained but Apple didn't want to agree to it.

Alternately, Apple offered to integrate turn-by-turn navigation but Google wouldn't consent without dragging along Latitude. Google walked away from the table; the Apple offer remained but Google didn't want to agree to it.

In a disagreement between megacorporations, it's a little naive to say that either one was behaving purely altruistically and reasonably while the other was completely villainous.

Re:complain

[quacking duck]

Right now they have monopoly on tablets (monopoly is legally defined as more than 50% market share in a particular market).
But I really hope it will change soon.

Legally a monopoly? Not even close.

"In a monopoly, one or more persons or companies totally dominates an economic market. Monopolies may exist in a particular industry if a company controls a major natural resource, produces (even at a reasonable price) all of the output of a product or service because of technological superiority (called a natural monopoly), holds a patent on a product or process of production, or is otherwise granted government permission to be the sole producer of a product or service in a given area."

A simple 50%+1 majority is not a monopoly.

Incidentally, iPad market share has reportedly slipped to 50% as of a few days ago, which makes monopoly claims even more ludicrous.

Now, whether they qualify for *antitrust* actions is an entirely different story. They may have been borderline antitrust behaviour, but this clearly has not prevented natural competition from reducing Apple's market share in any category they once dominated in, even after Apple's court victories.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

One of the things you're not allowed to do with a monopoly, is using the power of it to gain a monopoly in a different market.

So what is your "unit of monopoly" in this case?

Apple phones? Well, duh, Apple has a "monopoly" on those, but that's just moronic.

Smartphones? Apple does not have a monopoly here and never has. The best they can do is about 50% which is so far from a monopoly anyone looking at it seriously will laugh at you.

Mobile phones as a whole? See above, but with an even smaller percentage.

I'm not seeing what "monopoly unit" that you seem to want to select to result in *only* Apple being in a monopoly position. Maybe you can spell it out for us?

Well, while he spelled A-P-P-L-E, the only one with something resembling a monopoly in this case spells G-O-O-G-L-E.

Re:complain

[ryanov]

Transit directions? NYC is a big market.

Re:complain

[ryanov]

Google walked away from the table? It's their table.

Re:complain

[ryanov]

As if there were no app for that if you wanted one.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

As much as they tried to paint Google as the bad guy, it was Apple who refused to negotiate.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-no-longer-has-google-based-maps-on-the-iphone-2012-9

Apple tried to negotiate with Google

I don't know who's the bigger moron, you or the guys moding you up.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

That so-called "number 1 reason" they dumped google maps in favor of their own application is a feature that isn't even available on the iPhone 4. Their 3-d flyover view isn't available on it either.

It seems strange that they would have bothered to even make iOS6 compatible with older phones at all when what was evidently a key factor in their decision to change the OS mapping application will not work on such devices.

That still leaves vector maps and their lower data usage and the better offline use.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

Google _could_ have given me turn by turn navigation in their version but they chose not to.

Google has never had a maps app on iOS. It's always been an Apple app.

And they couldn't offer turn-by-turn because Google still doesn't allow allow it. https://developers.google.com/maps/terms

10.2 Restrictions on the Types of Applications that You are Permitted to Build with the Maps API(s). Except as explicitly permitted in Section 8 (Licenses from Google to You) or the Maps APIs Documentation, you must not (nor may you permit anyone else to) do any of the following:

(c) No Navigation, Autonomous Vehicle Control, or Enterprise Applications. You must not use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with any of the following:

(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.

Re:complain

[swillden]

This has all been very thoroughly hashed out in other threads.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

This has all been very thoroughly ignored in other threads.

FTFY

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

Isn't this the problem with the whole model though? You have to make the app, invest the thousands to make it work, and only then, after you've spent the money do you get to find out whether it was a complete and total waste or not. Based entirely on a large multinational's whim.

What problem? You obviously don't even have to bother writing an app anymore to get the publicity from an Apple banning. Just claim that it would get banned.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

Can you tell me why Sony's ebook reader app was rejected at Apple's app store?

Because they violated the in-app-purchase policy. But rejoice: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/reader-ebooks-from-sony/id566383171?mt=8

Re:complain

[BasilBrush]

There are also apps for finding restaurants.

Re:complain

[swillden]

Only if you had your fingers stuck in your ears.

Re:complain

[Plumpaquatsch]

So you claim Google's terms are lies.

Re:complain

[steelfood]

They're also in danger of a vertical monopoly.

They already bought up the companies that make the components. The walled garden gives them control over the other end of the product.

Re:complain

[socceroos]

nothing like the reality of the situation.

Ah, finally some accuracy.

Re:complain

[ryanov]

The circle of people who use the maps software is much wider than the circle of people who use it to drive with.

Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[MrEricSir]

Two companies competing with another don't see eye to eye on one another's products? What a surprise!

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[siddesu]

well, it is an app market. if you cut off competition just because your product isn't good enough, it smacks of childish spite, mostly. although most of what transpires between apple and the rest of the world recently has been more than a little stupid.

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[thesupraman]

I would suggest it risks more than that.
It risks being labeled anti-competitive...

I suspect there will be quite some discussion about that at Apple,
They dont want another bit PR hit right now, as they are somewhat low
in the good news stakes anyway.

Then again, if they think they can get away with it..

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[Nerdfest]

Isn't their whole "can't replicate existing functionality" think anti-competitive, especially when retroactively applied to apps that they added built-in apps for later?

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[siddesu]

It is anti-customer. Since most of us have diverging usage patterns, it is very hard to argue that there is one app that fits all bills, especially on a piece of hardware that goes around with you, as you can potentially find new usage patterns every hour. Usually a set of two or three apps is a better match, and sometimes even that isn't enough.

Putting brakes on the choice of apps, and the ability of user to mix and match for best results just because you can't check up if all of the apps fit your business model strikes me as pretty condescending.

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[Cinder6]

Is that even a thing, really? I know it was the stated reason behind the whole Google Voice debacle--but look: Google Voice is there. I have it, Sparrow (email) Chrome, Evernote, etc. on my iPhone.

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[spd_rcr]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how this isn't exactly like the anti-trust situation where Microsoft bundled their own browser with Windows. Except that Microsoft didn't actually restrict the software you could install, only the default/bundled stuff.

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[moronoxyd]

Let me tell you how this isn't exactly like the anti-trust situation with Microsoft:
Microsoft Windows had and has a (near) monopoly on the desktop OS market.
Apple does not have a monopoly on the smartphone or tablet market. They are one of the biggest players, but they do have real competition.

You can only be found guily to abuse your monopoly if you have a monopoly.

(It hurts to write this, as I'm as anti-Apple as they come, but I don't like critisizing Apple on false grounds. I leave that to the fanbois.)

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[bhagwad]

But you don't always have to have a monopoly to be taken up on anti-trust issues.

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[bhagwad]

As a reference:

"Certain antitrust violations, conventionally described as 'per se' offenses, do not require proof of market or monopoly power. [FN7] Indeed, the label 'per se' seems to point to the irrelevance of market power. An essential characteristic of a 'per se' offense, however, seems to be that it constitutes behavior that, if engaged in by a firm with market power, would be egregiously anticompetitive. [FN8] Market power is treated as irrelevant only because 'per se' offenses involve behavior that courts have determined virtually always lacks plausible efficiency justifications; no harm is done, therefore, by condemning the practice without undergoing the expense of an inquiry into monopoly or market power. [FN9]"

From: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/222144.htm

Re:Company doesn't approve of competitor's product

[Plumpaquatsch]

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how this isn't exactly like the anti-trust situation where Microsoft bundled their own browser with Windows.

Well, for one there was the consent decree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

You don't need Google Maps...

[ZipK]

... to find your way from iOS to Android. Goodbye Apple.

Re:You don't need Google Maps...

[Anonymous Coward]

made in the same factory as the cheap "metal" junk

Re:You don't need Google Maps...

[ozmanjusri]

Good point, though I've just picked up one of the early Yuando N90FHD tablets, and it has an aluminium frame and back, not plastic.

It also has a 9.7" 2048x1152 screen, 1GB DDR3 RAM, 32GB Nand Flash, 10000mAh battery, runs Android 4.1, weighs just 674g and costs just over $220.

So yeah, you're partly right. It's not plastic, and it's not junk, but compared to Apple, it IS cheap.

Re:You don't need Google Maps...

[psiclops]

just because metal is more expensive than plastic, doesn't mean it is better for all purposes.
what advantage does a metal housing for a phone have over a plastic one?

in my opinion, plastic is a superior material for the job due to being lighter, non-conductive(not interfering with NFC or other antennas inside the device) and not requiring an outer layer of paint - which is more susceptible to scratches, which are more obvious.

Re:You don't need Google Maps...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have never used a Nexus.

Re:You don't need Google Maps...

[hendridm]

Yep, you just need to ask where cheap plastic junk is sold. Then you know it's an Android device.

Look, I'm a huge Apple fanboy on the desk/laptop. I love my MBP. I love my Air. I love my 27" Thunderbolt monitor. You can pry them from my cold, dead hands.

For my portable devices, however, I am not a fan of iOS. Android on the phone and the Nexus 7. IMO, OS X is king of desktop productivity, Android is king of mobile productivity. Android is available on some excellent devices.

(Admittedly, though, if I could only choose one ecosystem, it would be Apple. It would be very difficult to give up my Nexus 7, but I just couldn't like without my Air + Thunderbolt display.)

welcome to Nazi computing

[Joe_Dragon]

welcome to Nazi computing where we control your software and can lock out any one we don't like.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo!!!

BURRREEEE BURRREEEEE BURRREEEEE

You win the Godwin's Law of the Day award!

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Vitriol Angst]

A lot of slashdot people seem to leave their brains at the door when it comes to Apple. Just really irrational hatred going on.

Google was already dumbing down their Map app on the iPhone before Apple got into the mapping business. They wanted to charge for "turn by turn" -- which makes business sense for Google. However -- it's a big feature for people with smart phones, so Apple had to do something.

Just from a business standpoint, why would Apple let someone do the "Microsoft thing" to them again? MS had a sub-par Office app experience on the Mac and Apple had to beg for that.

Apple probably will approve the Google App -- but only after they've established their own a bit more. Having users become dependent on an app that is a strategic trojan horse for the competitor is never a smart move. They've spent billions acquiring and developing their own mapping solution and it's REALLY UNLIKELY they'll even break even on that investment.

If any competitor makes the major app and features on your platform -- you become vulnerable.

I think a lot of these comments about Apple -- on so many topics, ignore normal business practices. It's as if they invented Lawsuits, using Chinese manufacturing plants, and defensive policies towards major competitors. Grow up Slashdot, and stop talking like the ignoramuses you like to make fun of.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Google was already dumbing down their Map app on the iPhone before Apple got into the mapping business. They wanted to charge for "turn by turn" -- which makes business sense for Google. However -- it's a big feature for people with smart phones, so Apple had to do something.

Dumbing down? The iOS version never had turn-by-turn. Apple wanted the feature and Google was willing to sell it to them but Apple didn't like the terms. If Apple "had to do something" they could have accepted Google's offer which was hardly world shattering in the first place. Instead they come out wish a rushed, sub par mapping application that is still many versions off before it's ready for prime time.

Equating Google Maps to a subpar solution ala Office on Mac, considering what Apple themselves put out is a complete joke.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[ThatsMyNick]

A lot of slashdot people seem to leave their brains at the door when it comes to Apple. Just really irrational hatred going on.

Touche. s/hated/fanboism/

Google was already dumbing down their Map app on the iPhone before Apple got into the mapping business. They wanted to charge for "turn by turn" -- which makes business sense for Google. However -- it's a big feature for people with smart phones, so Apple had to do something.

Google was dumbing down? Just be happy that Google even allowed Apple to use any of their Maps data, let alone Navigation data. Google got nothing in return for the data. No ads, no ad revenue, no fresh data, nothing, zilch. And then Apple wanted turn-by-turn navigation. Google wanted more prominent display of their name, and inclusion of Google Latitude. Apple refused. Google then offered it for a fee. Apple refused and went crying to their fanbois.

Just from a business standpoint, why would Apple let someone do the "Microsoft thing" to them again? MS had a sub-par Office app experience on the Mac and Apple had to beg for that.

Apple probably will approve the Google App -- but only after they've established their own a bit more. Having users become dependent on an app that is a strategic trojan horse for the competitor is never a smart move. They've spent billions acquiring and developing their own mapping solution and it's REALLY UNLIKELY they'll even break even on that investment.

It is not good business to degrade your main cash cow by showing down an inferior experience on your users, either. But what do I know, I am just an irrational slashdotter.

If any competitor makes the major app and features on your platform -- you become vulnerable.

I think a lot of these comments about Apple -- on so many topics, ignore normal business practices. It's as if they invented Lawsuits, using Chinese manufacturing plants, and defensive policies towards major competitors. Grow up Slashdot, and stop talking like the ignoramuses you like to make fun of.

Actually, they pretty much did invent it. Grow up fanbois.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You know what I think is funny, is that before Apple was as big as it is now (pre-2004'ish?) slashdot had a mostly pro-Apple slant, especially given the *nix at the heart of OS X. I always maintained my position that if Apple had the same leverage that Microsoft has, they would be much worse.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Google got nothing in return for the data. No ads, no ad revenue, no fresh data, nothing, zilch.

My last app submission featuring maps was rejected because I screwed my view coordinate calculation and the maps view was slightly bigger than the phone screen after a resize. The result was that the google logo branding which was at the bottom of the map disappeared. So to put any map app on the appstore you were required to always prominently show the google logo and never under any circumstances hide it or put something over it.

I believe that's a pretty big deal, especially when the app store review process lets a lot of crap get by which crashes on first run, but you get not to play if a brand name doesn't show up for a brief period of time...

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[whisper_jeff]

Google got nothing in return for the data. No ads, no ad revenue, no fresh data, nothing, zilch.

You believe that???

Wow. Um, ok.

I've seen some ill-informed opinions on Slashdot lately but that one ranks pretty highly on the list...

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I think is funny, is that after all these years you conclude it is about "leverage", and not that companies turn into shitty, anticompetitive, bully, childish molasses. But don't let the thousands of facts disturb your ILife of today, suit yourself.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[swillden]

Google got nothing in return for the data. No ads, no ad revenue, no fresh data, nothing, zilch.

You believe that???

Do you believe Google did get something? What? I suppose they could have deduced roughly where lots of iOS users were located based on which map tiles were requested from Google's servers, but I can't think of anything else Google could have gotten from Apple's app. Tile-level location data doesn't seem particularly useful. The app didn't show ads, so no ad revenue. So what is it that you believe Google got?

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I don't use iLife. I don't own a mac. I've never bought any apple products.

Apple has always been anti-standards, unless their proprietary system fails miserably. Take appletalk for example. Apple refused to use Internet Protocol until appletalk was just totally dead in the water.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Google got money from Apple...probably a per-device payment.

By all accounts, the deal with Google runs out next year. The speculation I've seen was that Apple released their own maps this year so that they weren't forced to renew the deal in the middle of the iPhone 5 product cycle (which would have given Google huge leverage when renegotiating the deal.)

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Google was dumbing down? Just be happy that Google even allowed Apple to use any of their Maps data, let alone Navigation data. Google got nothing in return for the data. No ads, no ad revenue, no fresh data, nothing, zilch. And then Apple wanted turn-by-turn navigation. Google wanted more prominent display of their name, and inclusion of Google Latitude. Apple refused. Google then offered it for a fee. Apple refused and went crying to their fanbois.

I am not sure why you think Google previously providing Maps data to Apple for free previously. They also got data from iPhone users to improve their data (they didn't initially, but I understand Apple was forced to allow it later). Apple had a license, a license they paid a lot for. This license did not allow Apple to implement turn-by-turn navigation and made the iOS maps inferior to what was offered on Andriod.

If reports are to be believed, negotiations broke down because Google wanted additional data from iPhone users and their branding on the app. Apple looked at this, probably thought how future negotiations were going to go over time, and seems to have made the call that a change was necessary to prevent a competitor from getting further embedded on their platform.

I stand to be proven wrong, but I don't think there will be an issue with a Google Maps App being accepted. The big thing for Apple was to reduce reliance on a competitor to provide an essential service in iOS and while not great out of the gate, I would be confident that Apple will invest heavily in Maps to bring it to parity with Google Maps in the near term (it's not as if they have a choice here!).

Cheers, Chris W.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[swillden]

I'm pretty sure Google got money from Apple...probably a per-device payment.

Based on what?

so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember United States v. Microsoft? Google has billions of dollars. Why not use a microscopic part of that money to donate to certain political causes that might possibly lead to the DOJ suing Microsoft on your behalf?

You know what's weird about that case in hindsight is that everyone would think an OS without a bundled browser is archaic today.

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[infernalC]

I can't believe there isn't a cesspool of litigation between these companies yet.

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[Majkow]

there is enough shit being thrown about with the human lawyers and you want to bring in the monkey lawyers!

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe there isn't a cesspool of litigation between these companies yet.

You know that they're already suing the fuck out of each other around the world and have been for some time now, right?

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[BitZtream]

And Microsoft bundling IE with Windows had absolutely jack shit to do with the reasons the DOJ went after them.

They were preventing OTHER browsers from being bundled with Windows, and thats what the problem was.

It was never a problem to bundle IE.

You guys really have no idea how the law works or what actually happened in that case, you really should stop bringing it up.

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[RocketRabbit]

Google will not sue, because Apple owns the multitouch UI patents. Too much at risk there - if Google were to lose, it'd be back to Android 1.0 style joystick / trackball navigation. That'd be fun for Google's partners.

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[andydread]

are you stupid? The multitouch used by android is not the same method used by Apple. When you patent something you are patenting the method

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[oreaq]

The wiki article says:

The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. [...] Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free.

Funnily enough, that is exactly how I remember it.

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[RocketRabbit]

The method is identical. Please tell me what methodological differences there are between pinch-to-zoom on the iPad or iPhone, and on Android.

Again, enjoy your fuckin' joystick or trackball dawg.

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[andydread]

Man!... You are showing your ignorance. The patent is not on what something does. example. multitouch. The patent is on the method that is used to implement multitouch. You cannot patent multitouch. Apple did not invent multitouch. You can only patent your method that is why apple lost their most significant case in the EU. The methods to achive pinch to zoom is different on the platforms. This is really not rocket sciene.

Re:so sue them with guerrilla lawyers

[RocketRabbit]

What matters is the US decision that may come out about this, if Google tries to push Apple. Pinch to zoom's exact "method" is different in terms of the source code, but the effect is the same and that is what will matter. By your reasoning you could totally clone everything about everything, as long as you did it in a different language, and this is clearly not the case.

Enjoy your trackball dawg.

Stupid apple

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first things Jobs did when he came back was stop the stupid and destructive fight with Microsoft. Now they're doing all they can to pick a fight with Google. My guess: in 10 years, when Apple is on its knees, they'll come crawling back to Google.

Re:Stupid apple

[thesupraman]

Ummm... that was Steve 'go nuclear on android' Jobs, I think you will find.

Cannot disagree on the rest, we are starting to see the tablet transition as we saw
on the phones a couple of years ago. If Apple doesnt find a new 'wonder' product in
the next 12 months, its going to get mighty difficult for them.

Re:Stupid apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, mighty difficult to spend all the money they make hand over fist. You realize that despute having "only" 15% marketshare that Apple still makes 60% of all smartphone profits, right? Samsung makes most of the rest.

Re:Stupid apple

[BitZtream]

Regardless of which you think is better, I'd be right beside Steve Jobs on this one.

One of Googles board members was sitting on Apples board ... watched the iPhone come to market and take it by storm and then decided to go into direct competition with it having inside knowledge of the entire plan.

I'm not arguing who is better or anything else, simply that if I was in Jobs's place, I'd take that shit personal and like a knife in the back as well, with repeated stabbings. If I thought I had a chance I'd try to wipe Google out for that shit as well.

I don't think they'll really stop them, the two products fill different rolls, but I completely understand that need for Jobs to beat the shit out of Google, what they did was pretty fucking douchebagish.

Re:Stupid apple

[Dahamma]

Oh bullshit. Without Google Maps and Search on day one, the iPhone would have been a tiny fraction as effective a device as it was. Google Maps was the killer app, and STILL is as everyone has learned with the Apple Maps fiasco.

And Google didn't even *create* Android, they just bought a startup once it seemed obvious that mobile devices would be the dominant form of social interaction. What, was Google supposed to ignore that whole market just because *Apple* elected its CEO to their board? I'm pretty sure a CEO's responsibilities to his company trump a board member's, and if they were paying attention they should have asked Schmidt to leave a lot sooner.

Re:Stupid apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Google maps may possibly have better data overall, but I've never personally had any difficulty with Apple Maps. It's vector based, fast and has turn by turn. I use it more than I ever used Google Maps. I'm glad iOS has a map application that was written after 2007. Sure its anecdotal and you may choose to accuse me of lying and fanboyism but Apple Maps got me around Miami last weekend perfectly well, and I've never run in to any problems with it.

Saying that Google Maps made the iPhone is ridiculous. If anything, Safari was what made the iPhone destroy the competition when it came out. Do you remember web browsers on cell phones before the iPhone? WAP nightmares on T9 candybar phones. The original iPhone also had a killer mail client compared to the competition at release. Mail on the V3 RAZR and its contemporaries was beyond painful. Sure Google Maps added a lot at release, but it was by no means THE killer feature of the iPhone.

That said I do hope (and expect) Apple to approve the Google Maps app. Let it in to the AppStore and then let the apps stand on their own merits. I think that once Apple sorts out (read: licenses better data) the inaccuracies, Apple Maps will be able to stand agains Google Maps on the iOS platform. If nothing else because of the vectorization and the speed advantage.

Re:Stupid apple

[Anonymous Coward]

And Bill Gates didn'te even *create* MS DOS, [he] juts bought a startup once it seemed obvious...oh wait a minute. I'm in the wrong thread!

Re:Stupid apple

[Dave Cole]

Google maps was vector based on Android for well over a year before the iphone5 came out.

I would be interested to know why google never made it vector based on iOS. Maybe they had been burned too many times by Apple refusing to pay for stuff.

Re:Stupid apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple Maps will be able to stand agains Google Maps on the iOS platform. If nothing else because of the vectorization and the speed advantage.

This is a funny thing about people who have had Apple phones and haven't played with modern Android phones. They don't realise that Google Maps are vector based, and have been for something like a couple of years now. It is only on Apple phones in the ancient map app that google maps has still been downloading map tiles. The brilliant thing about the google vector maps, is that their renderer is so good that the only time you realise that they're vector based is when you rotate the map, or look at the (really well done) 3d buildings in a city, so even if you see an Android phone, you might not realise it is vector maps if you don't use it regularly or zoom right in. It is hard to believe that it is a realtime renderer running on a tiny mobile phone cpu. Obviously it has all the advantages like fast download, offline caching of large map areas etc that Apple are touting as revolutionary too. Apple's tick list of amazing 'new' features in their maps is pretty much exactly the google maps feature list from when they added full turn by turn to Android a few years back.

Re:Stupid apple

[Anonymous Coward]

they should have asked Schmidt to leave a lot sooner.

The only bit of your post I agree with.

Google, with Android, were busy ripping off RIM until Apple came along with the iPhone.

Re:Stupid apple

[dinfinity]

Do you remember web browsers on cell phones before the iPhone? WAP nightmares on T9 candybar phones.

Wrong. Your memory of history is incorrect. Windows Mobile ruled that world 4 years before the first iPhone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mobile#History (WinMo in 2003).

Also, I'm not sure what your definition of a 'killer mail client' is, but Windows Mobile was equally ruling that world for an even longer time.

People ask me why I have a negative stance towards Apple and its products. It is because of people like the parent poster: people that have no clue how technological development has progressed and have probably derided many an early adopter in the past ("Hmph, I just want my phone to make calls!"), yet now boast with technologically ancient features that are supposedly something exceptional.

Re:Stupid apple

[Anonymous Coward]

the two products fill different rolls

There are baked goods with devices inside them now??

Re:Stupid apple

[Dahamma]

People ask me why I have a negative stance towards Apple and its products. It is because of people like the parent poster: people that have no clue how technological development has progressed and have probably derided many an early adopter in the past ("Hmph, I just want my phone to make calls!"), yet now boast with technologically ancient features that are supposedly something exceptional.

Remember, now, according to Apple no one would EVER want a 7" tablet...

Hey, have you seen that new iPad Mini? It's amazing, revolutionary, even. I just don't understand why no one else thought of it sooner.

Re:Stupid apple

[Dahamma]

Google maps may possibly have better data overall, but I've never personally had any difficulty with Apple Maps

That's ok, anecdotal evidence is fine to form your *own* opinion, just don't think it will change anyone else's.

My anecdote is that about half of the restaurants and businesses on Apple Maps within a couple miles of my house are off by at least a half block, sometimes more. Sure, people can still find them, but given Google has most of them pinpointed down to about 10 feet, it really is bad data on Apple's part.

And to make it even worse - I anally spent about 30 minutes correcting dozens of them a few weeks ago. And none have changed yet. So much for their excuse about "crowdsourcing" improving the data. Finally, the really ironic part - I live about 5 miles from Apple's HQ. There are probably dozens of Apple employees living in my neighborhood an using those businesses... couldn't they even get those right?

There are other Google based App Store apps

[SuperKendall]

The thought that Google will not be accepted just because Apple is not featuring any Google based mapping apps is rediculous. There are a number of Google based mapping apps in the app store, from a Street View app to something called Sparkling Maps which is meant to be something of a Google maps clone.

Apple does not feature every app on the App store; there are too many. But that does not mean anything in terms of what they will approve, and the myth that Apple will not allow publishing anything that "duplicates functionality" is long dead at this point.

This whole story is nothing more than Apple Hater bait, and I can see by the first few replies the trolls are hungrily feasting upon it.

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[dontbemad]

Yeah. Or they could reject it. Apple has done far more childish things that cause harm to its increasingly disenfranchised user-base.

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.

Or they could reject it. Apple has done far more childish things that cause harm to its increasingly disenfranchised user-base.

Yeah just like they rejected Google Voice because it competed with Siri....Oh wait... no they didnt.

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[tlhIngan]

Actually, Apple will reject the new maps app.

Because the first submitted version will never make it through the review process. Very FEW apps have made it through the review process without initial rejection.

It also doesn't help that Google's iOS team is hopelessly incompetent - Google's apps aren't exactly super stable and many have been withdrawn so they could be fixed up. It's almost as if Apple rubber-stamps Google's apps just to show off how "bad" they are.

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[andymadigan]

How in the hell does Google Voice compete with Siri? Google Voice is a call management application with SMS functionality. The only possible overlap is the voicemail transcription feature, which isn't capable of interpreting voice in realtime and doesn't perform any kind of query. It was actually rejected for a while, though I think Apple eventually approved it.

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know what Google Voice is? Clearly not...

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[stephanruby]

...and the myth that Apple will not allow publishing anything that "duplicates functionality" is long dead at this point.

A myth? Are you kidding me? The last time Apple removed existing applications, because it "duplicated" (new) iPhone functionality, was just last week. And I'm talking about removing existing applications, not just banning new applications. Granted, those apps were for adding emoji icons, it's probably no big loss to anyone, but it at least proves that this clause in their developer EULA hasn't gone away.

Besides, no one is saying that Apple "will not allow publishing anything that 'duplicates functionality'". That's a straw man argument. From the very beginning, Apple hasn't been consistent in enforcing its rules anyway. For instance, it allowed some apps that duplicated functionality, while it rejected other applications that duplicated that same functionality.

The thing is. You don't really know. And Apple won't tell you of course. So you have to invest all this money and manpower in building your app for the iPhone platform and take the risk that the person reviewing your app is in a good mood that day, and/or that Apple won't go back on its decision six months from now (when they feel their mapping application has finally passed QA).

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[Anonymous Coward]

Key word: could.

All the news sites demonstrated themselves to be link bait whores with the number of times this story was posted.

No Google Maps app has been developed or submitted yet (according to Google). End of story.

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[Invalidator]

There are quite a few others as well. I use Maps+. It is free, but some functions are limited to the pay version. Just search for "Google Maps" in the App store. You'll find plenty.

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[jareth-0205]

You do know it took them a *year* to approve the original Google Voice app?

Re:There are other Google based App Store apps

[ThePeices]

Why do you assume it is a bad thing to hate Apple?

Is it wrong for me to genuinely hate Stalin or Al Assad or any other crackpot dictator out there?

Thought not.

So please tell me, how is Apple any less worthy of hatred?

Browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be stupid....

I say....

[PortHaven]

FUCK them over with a nice anti-trust lawsuit. Seems like a clear cut case if I've ever seen one.

Re:I say....

[jo_ham]

FUCK them over with a nice anti-trust lawsuit. Seems like a clear cut case if I've ever seen one.

On what grounds?

What "clear cut" monopoly position are they abusing?

Until then it's just one store complaining that another store might not want to sell its product, but it doesn't know for sure but assumes it will say no.

Re:I say....

[Anonymous Coward]

"Until then it's just one store complaining that another store might not want to sell its product" This isn't one store it is an entire computing platform. They are not nearly the same species as a store. There can be no competing store on iOS, it is a locked in platform/ecosystem. With so much tied up/in to the platform the impact is very significant when this sort of self serving behavior promotes itself and hurts competition.

Re:I say....

[jo_ham]

"Until then it's just one store complaining that another store might not want to sell its product" This isn't one store it is an entire computing platform. They are not nearly the same species as a store. There can be no competing store on iOS, it is a locked in platform/ecosystem. With so much tied up/in to the platform the impact is very significant when this sort of self serving behavior promotes itself and hurts competition.

How is it any different to the current situation in the game console market?

"Sony insider says Sony PSN app unlikely to be approved for XBox Live, look how evil Microsoft are!! zomg!"

Re:I say....

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I hope you'll provide encouragement to the Federal Trade Commission to file an anti-trust suit against Google for its unfair business practices involving FRAND licensing of mobile technology patents.
Recently FTC staff formally recommended the government file suit, but of course you won't read that on Slashdot.
Slashdot is to Google what Fox News is to the Republican Party.

I liked Apple...

[fullback]

I have used Apple and Windows products for over 20 years. I liked my Apple Macbook and use iPads in one of my businesses. We deliver using the iPad maps app and maintained a history using the previous app.

Imagine losing all that data? That's what Apple did to me with this unannounced change. They put their own selfish agenda above their customers. They could have easily brought back the old app.

Bastards. I'm tired of both Apple and Windows forcing me to use devices and applications only the way they decide I should use them.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Osgeld]

" They put their own selfish agenda above their customers"

well no shit, they have done nothing but that since the 1980's, what did you expect?

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't you just downgrade to IOS5?

Re:I liked Apple...

[mark-t]

How do you downgrade back to iOS5, exactly? I mean, post-beta.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you upgrade in the first place? I haven't yet, and Google Maps still works perfectly.

Re:I liked Apple...

[HockeyPuck]

I have used Apple and Windows products for over 20 years. I liked my Apple Macbook and use iPads in one of my businesses. We deliver using the iPad maps app and maintained a history using the previous app.

Imagine losing all that data? That's what Apple did to me with this unannounced change. They put their own selfish agenda above their customers. They could have easily brought back the old app.

Bastards. I'm tired of both Apple and Windows forcing me to use devices and applications only the way they decide I should use them.

Translation:
I didn't do my due diligence by verifying that the upgrade would allow me to run my business in the way that I've been running it. While it is a mission critical application in my business, I decided to not follow solid business practices and take a leap of faith by assuming that everything would work exactly like it did before.

I also ignored all the online reports nor did any research into what the impact would be off switching to a new map application. I am now trying to blame apple for forcing me to upgrade, as I'm too proud to take the blame on myself.

Re:I liked Apple...

[maugle]

Translation: I didn't do my due diligence by verifying that the upgrade would allow me to run my business in the way that I've been running it.

Huh. I typically expect new versions of programs to add functionality, not arbitrarily remove it. Or is it considered common practice now before updating to go over a checklist of every feature of every app you use, to make sure it hasn't disappeared?

Do you check to make sure each update to the iPhone still lets you make calls?

Re:I liked Apple...

[BitZtream]

That's what Apple did to me with this unannounced change.

You're a shitty developer then. I was using the new maps app for months before it went live, it was hardly unannounced if you bothered to test your apps on the betas.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is it considered common practice now before updating to go over a checklist of every feature of every app you use, to make sure it hasn't disappeared?

Yes. Yes it is.

Have you seen what Sony has done to the PS3?

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, why are people modding down critiques of this post down?

Do we understand what OP is saying? They actually relied on the history in the maps app for their business - that's like relying on your web browser history to run a business. That's insanity.

Re:I liked Apple...

[symes]

Personally, I'm pretty tired of both Google and Apple. Google for trying to track everything I do on the internet and, in some cases, everywhere I go. And Apple, mostly because of the maps issue. I've switched to Bing as my search engine of choice and I will not upgrade iOS on my iPhone and iPad until the maps facility is improved or, ironically, Google maps is back in there. I am liking Win7 however and generally finding MS to have improved as a company, something I find hard to say. But I'm pretty tired of the lot of them tbh and this is effecting my choices. I'll probably switch to Samsung for phones, I'll continue to use Ubuntu where I can.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're using it for business, it's not just common practice, it's basic competence.

Re:I liked Apple...

[fullback]

You are leaping to some wrong conclusions.
I do not live in the U.S.
Apple did indeed force me to update.
My iPads froze and the only function available was to download the iOS upgrade.
I had no choice.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up. If you update without consideration, you will eventually be fucked. This is true on all systems. Those that think about what they're doing will have more success and satisfaction than those that do without thinking.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

They announced the change months before the update

Re:I liked Apple...

[makomk]

You can't, unless you prepared in advance by saving a copy of the signature file required to install iOS 5 on your device before Apple stopped signing installation requests for iOS 5. You can't even reinstall it on devices that were already running it if the OS gets screwed up and you need to recover it - in fact, that's apparently what forced this person to upgrade to iOS 6 in the first place. Apple have put a lot of effort into stopping users from downgrading their iDevices.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of both Apple and Windows forcing me to use devices and applications only the way they decide I should use them.

Interesting that you enjoyed it before...

Re:I liked Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Or is it considered common practice now before updating to go over a checklist of every feature of every app you use, to make sure it hasn't disappeared?
Yes. And it has been. Usually it's not that the feature was removed, just broken.

Re:I liked Apple...

[Just Some Guy]

Do you check to make sure each update to the iPhone still lets you make calls?

No, but I don't check that each update will maintain the carefully-cultivated call history I've let myself come to depend on. If that information were truly important to the OP, he could have created contacts for his customers and added their addresses. The new maps app will cheerfully let him navigate to a contact's listed address, whether or not that address is in his history. You store their phone numbers in an address book, right? Why wouldn't you keep the rest of their contact information in there, too?

In other news

[wbr1]

Samsung doubts apple will purchase its LCD panels. Oh, wait.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we wait until they submit it and see what Apple does before calling Apple nazis.....

Re:Everyone is jumping to conclusions.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. If only we had some kind of "mat", perhaps located in a "welcoming" position at ones front door, that allowed one to jump to conclusions in a non-destructive manner.

Fanboism can only go so far ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... before the truth hits, that is.

You've done a very good job as the self-appointed Apple fanboy, so much so that you are telling a flat out lie.

Google never withhold its turn-by-turn voice navigation.

It was Apple which walked away from the discussion - Google's offer still on the table.

I believe another poster has provided the link - please do us all a favor, read TFA and stop lying !

Re:Fanboism can only go so far ...

[BitZtream]

Exposing uses to Latitude is pretty much a 'go fuck yourself' response from Apple any anyone else with half a brain. Its not exactly considered a 'fair' offer, so its as good as saying no.

Re:Fanboism can only go so far ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exposing uses to Latitude is pretty much a 'go fuck yourself' response from Apple any anyone else with half a brain. Its not exactly considered a 'fair' offer, so its as good as saying no.

Take the parent's advice and try reading before spouting off your bullshit. That was only one part of one of several offers Google tried to make. Apple did not actually try to negotiate at all- they told Google to either deliver the app exactly as Apple wanted it or they'd take their ball and go home. Which is what they ended up doing.

Re:Fanboism can only go so far ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, because Latitude is a mandatory part of Google Maps!
Hmm, wait, it isn't, it's an optional service for which you have to opt in, so what's your point? I consider it a fair offer to let Google add an option to the maps app that some users are interested in (just search the internet for people looking to enable latitude on their iPhone) in exchange for free extra features Apple wanted.

Re:Fanboism can only go so far ...

[Plumpaquatsch]

... before the truth hits, that is.

You've done a very good job as the self-appointed Apple fanboy, so much so that you are telling a flat out lie.

Google never withhold its turn-by-turn voice navigation.

They most certainly did. They still don't allow it for anybody using Google Maps/Google Earth API. https://developers.google.com/maps/terms.

If they reject Google....

[mark-t]

Wouldn't they then be in the position of being somewhat obligated to, for similar reasons, also discontinue (at least for iOS6 and later) any of the other mapping and navigations programs that are available on the app store?

Re:If they reject Google....

[jo_ham]

Why?

They can choose what to put on their store with no penalty from any "antitrust" position. In the same way that Walmart can choose not to sell Bob's Apple Pies if it wants to, even though it sells apple pies from other manufacturers.

If you don't like that, there are other stores that will happily sell you Bob's Apple Pies.

Re:If they reject Google....

[mark-t]

Suggesting that there are other stores when talking about iOS apps is not entirely unlike suggesting that there are other operating systems you can use besides Windows on a PC.

Yeah, it's true.... that doesn't mean that that it's always going to be worth anyone's time to focus on that market for any given application.

Maybe Only in the US Store

[MidnightBrewer]

So the International Business Times quotes the Guardian, who cites "sources at Google familiar with its mapping plans" - in other words, nobody at all. As others have pointed out, there are many Google-API based applications on the App Store; some of them are even in the "featured" category in certain stores, such as the Japanese App Store. Whoever they're quoting doesn't know much, and their knowledge appears to be limited to whatever country they happen to be in. This doesn't amount to more than water-cooler gossip and conspiracy theory. Nothing to see here.

History is still there

[SuperKendall]

We deliver using the iPad maps app and maintained a history using the previous app.

If you kept a history in Bookmarks in the map app, they are still there. I have years worth of different map bookmarks I can still use just fine.

A history kept any other way would have been lost in any major OS upgrade, regardless of changing from Apple Maps or not.

Re:History is still there

[fullback]

I'm in Japan and the new Apple maps does not support addresses in Japan. There is no way to use any bookmarked locations with the new app.

orly?

[AlexanderZ]

CNET and Wired disagree. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57545241-37/yes-apple-will-approve-google-maps-for-ios/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/11/report-google-maps-app-trouble/

Is the web not good enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't Google's maps.google.com web site do all that they need? Why the need for a native app? Not being a smart ass here. I'm just genuinely curious. I don't have a smartphone, so I don't know about all of their capabilities, but I know they come with modern web browsers. After all the hoopla that companies like Google have made to sell us on "the could" it seem disingenuous for them to make a native app rather than eat their own dogfood. I thought that all of these new features added to web browsers in the last few years were to make native app replacement possible.

No turn by turn audio and manual location input

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use the google maps website, you don't get turn by turn audio meaning you have to constantly look at the screen. Also, you would have to manually input your location and the map would not be updated as your location changes so while yes you could get maps and directions it would be no different than using your laptop to do so.

Re:No turn by turn audio and manual location input

[Anonymous Coward]

map would not be updated as your location changes

Actually there's a geolocation API that does let the web page get your location.

However you do need to give Safari permission to use the GPS, and *then* authorize a web page anytime it asks for the information. So you'll get a popup every time you go to their maps website.

Google should keep its maps to itself

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was Google I wouldn't build a map app for aple IOS. This would make android a much more desirable alternative. In fact I would probably remove the rest of my apps, gmail etc, from the Apple app store also.

Re:Google should keep its maps to itself

[mark-t]

I really like Google maps, and I own an iPhone, but if Google chose to do that, it wouldn't inspire me to buy Android. I would see such a choice by Google to be extremely petty.

Not that Apple rejecting Google likely wouldn't also be petty, but if Google is smart about this, they'd be wiser to let Apple take fall for being so. if Google tries to play by the same rules as anybody else and Apple just doesn't let them in, then only one of two things must happen:

Either Apple must also discontinue all the other map applications on the same grounds as they reject Google's. This will be almost certain to be the cause of numerous lawsuits... both against apple and against developers of such applications, and will result in a lot of bad PR for Apple; or else Apple will decide to treat Google differently, excluding it while allowing the other mapping applications, which would in no uncertain terms publicly paint Apple as the bad guy in all of this, which will still result in a lot of bad PR for Apple.

If Apple does let Google develop an iOS app, then everybody wins.

Re:Google should keep its maps to itself

[greg1104]

You're right to highlight this is nothing but a free PR announcement by Google. They got another round reminding everyone that Apple maps sucks, and they are the good guys, in front of our faces. All they're doing here is making sure they don't get any of the blame for screwing the IOS maps up, that it all stays firmly on top of Apple.

The only interesting part is how Google is laying the groundwork for an excuse if they decide to stop porting to IOS altogether. And given the multiple lawsuits between the companies also going on right now, why should they bother? Apple has made a serious competitive error here. They used to be able to credibly claim the best of breed smartphone applications in every major area, and now they've blown one of the biggest ones instead. I expect Google to squeeze that mistake as hard as they can.

Re:Google should keep its maps to itself

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't need to inspire. It just needs to cause a situation where you are forced to use Apple's maps and after sometime of everyone with Android phones being able to use mapping functionality consistently and easily, while you fight and get frustrated with Apple's maps until you develop a disdain and switch to Android just because "Apple sucks. I spend half my time using this phone just trying to use the maps."

Note that this doesn't mean you specifically, but the general iphone owner. It's only so long that everyone will stare befuddled at their iphone while the Android maps "just work" before they give up on it. I know for me, maps is the one application I wouldn't give up. I would part with email before maps. My girlfriend already returned her new iphone due to how infuriated it constantly made her with the mapping. She switched to an SIII, and she doesn't seem to find any significant functionality differences between the phones, except now she has a working map application and she likes the bigger screen size.

I don't know if everyone else has come to rely as much on maps as my family and I, but if they have this is a very big negative for Apple.

Re:Google should keep its maps to itself

[mark-t]

Of course this is a big negative for Apple.

But it would be a big negative for Google too if Google didn't even try to offer an application that was on the same level as what their Android version had.

If Apple then turns around and rejects that, then Google gets a HUGE amount of free publicity as having actually tried to be the good guys and give iOS users what they want, and Apple gets painted as an even worse character than they already are. That decision by Apple, unless accompanied by a decision to also remove *ALL* mapping applications from the iOS app store (which would also result in a lot of bad publicity for Apple), would be enough of an incentive for myself that although I don't urgently need a new cell phone anytime soon, I'd be buying a new Android phone at the earliest opportunity.

If Google does not develop a mapping app for the iPhone, or tries to artificially keep their Android application as a vastly superior alternative, then that would not inspire me to go out and buy an Android any sooner than when my current phone vitally needs replacing due to ordinary wear and tear or damage. By that time, Apple might even have improved their mapping application to the point that it is more level with Google, and the incentive to switch platforms would be lowered.

Had Apple pulled this sort of stunt 18 months ago, before I actually bought my current phone, I do not think I would have bought an iPhone at all. But this action alone is not incentive enough for me to switch platforms and bear the costs associated with that.

This seems to be the only comment worth viewing

[Burz]

so far.

'Nuff said...

Bullshit

[JoeyRox]

Does Google really think Apple would reject Google Maps, with all the negative publicity it would cause for Apple?

Re:Is protecting your privacy a reason to hate App

[rtfa-troll]

Are Apple users really worse off not having Lattitude track them as they use the map app?

I'd imagine that the ones that choose to use Latitude are worse off since the features of Latitude they use won't work. I've seen Latitude used for finding when friends are nearby; it looks like a useful feature that I miss because I want to reduce the amount I'm tracked. The other users could choose to have it switched off as I do on my Android phone. What's the problem with extra choice? Overall, Google's tracking is the reason their map app gives the best times for routing. I guess that overall the users are better off.

What you are hinting at is a real privacy problem. Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon, AT&T and Google all get user's location data and then use that for commercial reasons other than the user's direct benefit. With Google, at least we can have the belief that they know how to do data filtering and anonymization. That's not enough though; there should definitely be laws, as there are in Europe for mobile operators, which protect the subscriber's privacy. That's an independent issue however.

Re:Buh bye!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure someone who doesn't use the mapping features in the first place wouldn't mind losing them.

Google Support in 50% of apps

[Tarpan Horses]

Wait a second... I use TomTom and it has google search support. Navigon, Sygic, Garmin all list google search support. So basically half the apps showing up in my "Find maps for you iPhone/iPad" claim to have google search support. Something doesn't add up here.

Dunno, don't care. Easy solution - ditch Apple and

[Anonymous Coward]

get an Android phone.

Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who read this and thought that "it's" meant Apple's?
I thought it meant that Apple wouldn't bother to improve their own crappy maps app.

Why can't Apple...

[unixisc]

...just team up w/ AAA and use their maps? And make similar deals w/ auto associations in other countries that they care about? Rest they can try and fill up w/ OpenStreetMaps, and hope that it fills in the difference.

Re:Why can't Apple...

[Jeremy Visser]

Rest they can try and fill up w/ OpenStreetMaps, and hope that it fills in the difference.

You may be interested to find out that Apple are already using OpenStreetMap in iOS 6 Maps.

Re:Why can't Apple...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm GP, but am posting from work, hence not logging in

I know that Apple is using OpenStreetMaps, but I am also aware of OSM's shortcomings. My suggestion above was different - that Apple team up w/ Auto Associations both in the US and abroad to get all the mapping data it needs, and for places that don't have auto clubs or the auto clubs don't have maps, they can use OSM just to fill in the gaps. In other words, the data would be a composite of Auto clubs and OSM, and Apple could paper over that w/ its usual pretty interfaces (or standardize on AAA's) so that it has a common look & feel to it.

That way, Apple won't have to use Google's maps.

Re:Is protecting your privacy a reason to hate App

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Apple users really worse off not having Lattitude track them as they use the map app? I don't think so

You don't have to use Lattitude at all to use the maps, and even if you do the tracking is opt-IN so it's only gathering data if you tell it to. While I object to having Lattitude force-bundled, frankly speaking the only concern is that it's bloatware.

In around a year the two maps will be equivalent for searches and iOS users will have a more readable map

That remains to be seen, Nostradamus. So far they don't seem to be doing a very good job fulfilling your prophecy.

with less user tracking

Uh, what? You mean less user tracking by Google, there's absolutely NO reason to assume that Apple won't track you.

I have used the navigation feature quite often and never had an issue, in fact when going to my house it chooses a route that is one I have been using for years, instead of a somewhat more roundabout path Google Maps always chose.

That's because the Google app is basing it's recommendation from data for the roads, traffic conditions, and travel times. The Apple app is using your own phone's location history in addition to road statistics and info. So it's not showing you the "best" route, it's showing you the route you've already told them you prefer to take. Do that same route lookup from a different iPhone which has never traveled that area, and you'll find the route it gives you is closer to the one Google and other navigation software provides.

No way will this get rejected

[Anonymous Coward]

This is clearly just Google trying to stir controversy for their advantage. They want to create enough groundswell of opinion amongst dissatisfied iOS customers to pressure Apple into making sure it DOESN'T reject the app.

I'll wager there's not one iPhone or iPad user that wouldn't welcome a Google Maps app back to the platform. Google and Apple both know this. It also makes Apple seem even more unreasonable when they are painted as wanting to deny users a superior maps product. Google wins the PR fight there.

There's no way it'll be rejected. Apple want to save face over this whole debacle, but not enough to piss off the majority of their users.

wasn't this debunked by wired?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/11/report-google-maps-app-trouble/?cid=co4432484

Nope.

[mosb1000]

The google maps mobile website will get your location on your iPhone.

Apple Anti-Trust

[Anonymous Coward]

Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.

Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?

Re:Apple Anti-Trust

[jo_ham]

Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.

Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?

If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.

Re:Apple Anti-Trust

[Brannoncyll]

Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.

Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?

If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.

Well you can feel sorry for me too, as I also cannot see how Microsoft getting fined for pre-loading their web browser in their products while Apple is getting away with not only pre-loading their products with their mapping software but actively preventing you from being able to choose an alternative. If this behaviour is not anti-competitive I don't know what is. Are you arguing that because they produce the hardware they somehow have the right to maintain an unprecedented stranglehold over what the customers can do with said devices?

Re:Apple Anti-Trust

[jo_ham]

Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.

Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?

If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.

Well you can feel sorry for me too, as I also cannot see how Microsoft getting fined for pre-loading their web browser in their products while Apple is getting away with not only pre-loading their products with their mapping software but actively preventing you from being able to choose an alternative. If this behaviour is not anti-competitive I don't know what is. Are you arguing that because they produce the hardware they somehow have the right to maintain an unprecedented stranglehold over what the customers can do with said devices?

No, I'm arguing that Microsoft holding a monopoly position in the OS market and *then* bundling a browser to kill Netscape on Windows was the problem.

Had Microsoft not had a monopoly in the OS space then bundling IE and killing off Netscape would have been a dick move, but perfectly legal and fine.

If Apple decides to reject the Google Maps app then it will be totally legal and fine - they absolutely do not hold a monopoly in smartphones and/or tablets - whether it is a smart move, or a dick move is entirely separate. What it will be is legal, however.

Re:Apple Anti-Trust

[Brannoncyll]

Many years ago, Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suite for bundling a web browser with their OS because it was apparently anti-competitive.

Apple is now bundling a mapping program with their OS and is being very competitive. How is this not anti-trust? Why are they not under fire?

If you can't see the blindingly obvious reason why, then I feel really sorry for you. I guess that explains why you can't figure out how to log in either.

Well you can feel sorry for me too, as I also cannot see how Microsoft getting fined for pre-loading their web browser in their products while Apple is getting away with not only pre-loading their products with their mapping software but actively preventing you from being able to choose an alternative. If this behaviour is not anti-competitive I don't know what is. Are you arguing that because they produce the hardware they somehow have the right to maintain an unprecedented stranglehold over what the customers can do with said devices?

No, I'm arguing that Microsoft holding a monopoly position in the OS market and *then* bundling a browser to kill Netscape on Windows was the problem.

Had Microsoft not had a monopoly in the OS space then bundling IE and killing off Netscape would have been a dick move, but perfectly legal and fine.

If Apple decides to reject the Google Maps app then it will be totally legal and fine - they absolutely do not hold a monopoly in smartphones and/or tablets - whether it is a smart move, or a dick move is entirely separate. What it will be is legal, however.

According to this website the Ipad claims 76.4% of the 2012 US tablet market, which is typically large enough to be considered a monopoly in the US (justice.gov). I find myself surprised that Apple do not have a monopoly in the smartphone market considering how many people I see using Iphones in New York.

Re:Apple Anti-Trust

[jo_ham]

So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?

Re:Apple Anti-Trust

[Brannoncyll]

So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?

My point was only that Apple have a monopoly in the tablet market and in my opinion (for what that matters) are abusing their dominance to unfairly deny their customers the ability to choose a competing mapping application. This appears to me to be anticompetitive, much more so even than Microsoft, who, while bundling their browser with Windows, never went as far as actively preventing the installation of a competing browser.

Re:Apple Anti-Trust

[jo_ham]

So, your point is that if you exclude most iOS devices, Apple has a monopoly on one segment of portable devices relevant to Google Maps (and even then, nowhere near the level of MS in the Windows antitrust suit days)?

My point was only that Apple have a monopoly in the tablet market and in my opinion (for what that matters) are abusing their dominance to unfairly deny their customers the ability to choose a competing mapping application. This appears to me to be anticompetitive, much more so even than Microsoft, who, while bundling their browser with Windows, never went as far as actively preventing the installation of a competing browser.

But even with tablets only they do not hold a monopoly. As of 3Q11 they had about 65% of the tablet market, and as of 3Q12 they now hold 50%.

Apple also aren't "actively preventing the installation of [google maps]" - someone at Google is saying that they might, in a wild flair of speculation. It's certainly an odd position to take when the CEO of Apple recommends that iOS6 customers use Google Maps (among other options) if they are disappointed with the current state of Apple's own maps app in a very public apology letter over the "scandal".

I find it hard to see how that is anticompetitive, especially when there is nothing stopping you using Google Maps on iOS6 at all right now. This is just the Youtube thing all over again - misinformed Apple bashing.

Let's at the very, very least wait until Google submits the app for approval before we start bashing Apple as "anticompetitive" for not allowing it on the store.

Baloney

[mr100percent]

Of course they'll approve it. It's a highly popular app, and when Apple turned down the Google Voice app, the FTC investigated them and Apple had to immediately reverse itself.

The lack of Google Maps apps in the App Store is probably because of TOS issues. Third Party iOS apps can't use google maps for turn by turn directions according to Google's restrictions to developers, so that excludes Google's APIs

It's your device

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it comical that people debate who wanted what, and what the terms were/are. It really comes down to the total control Apple and other device makers have over the end user. It should not ever be what apple or google wants. If a person decides they want an application it should never be up to the device maker to approve or disapprove of what application can or can not be used. Simply put if someone wants google maps on their iJunk they should be able to download it and install it without having to have the "permission" of the iJUnk maker.

These "app stores" are asinine. The criteria should be that an application be malware free.

what's that sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

...fanbois wailing about their borked maps app. Still, it has rounded corners and is glossy right?

Monopoly

[SuperDre]

And this is a clear case of Apple abusing their monopoly, blocking apps which have the same functionalities as their own (but better) from their store.. The reason Apple doesn't allow google to publish their map-app propably is because it people would use that instead of their crap-map-app so they cannot get the information anymore (because apple is collecting all information as much).

Re:Monopoly

[gnasher719]

And this is a clear case of Apple abusing their monopoly, blocking apps which have the same functionalities as their own (but better) from their store.. The reason Apple doesn't allow google to publish their map-app propably is because it people would use that instead of their crap-map-app so they cannot get the information anymore (because apple is collecting all information as much).

And this is a clear case of idiotically avoiding to read the article. Apple hasn't abused any monopoly. They haven't blocked any Google app. The reason why they haven't blocked any Google app is because Google doesn't actually have an app yet that would run on iOS, and they haven't submitted anything, so even if Apple really really wanted to block anything that Google submits, they didn't have a chance yet.

speculations

[Anonymous Coward]

This companies are too big for this to be a real concern, this is all a marketing war ... Google has not yet submitted the Google Maps and its playing innocent ? Anyways, not sure how Apple would fare not that Jobs left and it seems that the whole world is totally against them.

it will prompt if you wish to share

[Anonymous Coward]

stop the FUD

Re:it will prompt if you wish to share

[mosb1000]

I think from the parent's post it's pretty obvious he want's google maps to know his location (for directions and whatnot). I was simply pointing out it has that capability.

The kool aid.

[AbRASiON]

I drank it for about 2 years, loved my iphone so much. My first smartphone - I was completely blown away by the thing.
Infact, I became so addicted to their products and so eager for new shit, I actually ruined a part of a nice long holiday in London in 2010 because I was so busy reading iphone 4 news, hoping for it's release while I was away, ordering the phone in the store over there - the whole lot. I was so desperate for the next 'iproduct' that I wasn't spending time enjoying myself on my holiday. Totally my own fault of course but part of dumb consumerism, brand loyalty, good marketing.
(Yes, I did end up buying it outright in the UK)

Over time though, I got sick of so many things I couldn't do. I hated that I needed to jailbreak just for SBSettings, which is frankly - fucking priceless (or was 18 months ago when I last used it) that one thing alone and the fact Apple hadn't copied SBSettings had me concerned. How can they NOT impliment this logical, awesome stuff?
They are devestatingly stubborn.

Someone showed me, I think a 2.2 build of Android and the pull down menu and the power bar widget. I was blown away. He was an Android nerd and lent me an Android phone for a few weeks. Almost all the shit which was pissing me off with an iphone was solved. I think I'd owned my iphone 4 for about 4 months at this point and then it went in a drawer for 7 months before I sold it - my journey had begun.
Would never EVER switch back now - just couldn't consider it

Won't deny one thing though - the hardware support from Apple, no one else comes close, not even remotely - which is sad. That whole "oh golly sir, it has a scratch and re-booted once on you?! Here have a new phone!" - that's good. That bought my loyalty for quite a while, won't deny that.
I hear Samsung and Asus are really bad to return things to - and I've personally
returned to Nokia (or tried to) I'll never purchase a Nokia product again.

Long story short though, this stubborn shit from Apple? surprising? Not at all, not even slightly.

Re:The kool aid.

[EmagGeek]

I have had zero issues returning things to Samsung or Asus. I had several Samsung flip phones over the years (A707, A717, A737, etc) and a couple of times I had one get flakey on me. AT&T referred me to Samsung and they replaced them outright no questions asked.

Similarly, when I bought my Asus Nexus 7, the magnetic compass went goofy on me and just started spinning in circles. Not only did they not give me any lip about exchanging it, but they overnighted my replacement to me for free, along with a pre-paid shipping label to return the broken one.

The fact that Apple will pay $200 to avoid upsetting a customer is not "good hardware support," it's "cutthroat business tactics." They're not doing it to make you happy. They're doing it to keep you from being happy by switching to the better of the two platforms.

Re:The kool aid.

[marcosdumay]

Won't deny one thing though - the hardware support from Apple, no one else comes close, not even remotely - which is sad. That whole "oh golly sir, it has a scratch and re-booted once on you?! Here have a new phone!" - that's good.

Well, I'm lucky in that I've never tried returning a phone. But, anyway, you can easily buy an Android phone by half the price of an iPhone with equivalent specs and quality... In the exceptional case that it fails, if the manufacturer doesn't accept a return you are still even.

Re:The kool aid.

[PPalmgren]

Samsung managed to piss me off with their bluray players. I was an early adopter and spent about $300 on one, and with subsequent firmware updates to play new movies, they had to re-purpose the memory used to playback DVDs for more bluray stuff because they didnt put enough into the product. So I had a choice, either play DVDs or be able to play new Blurays, not both. That's not what I bought and paid for. Long story short, they wanted to charge me $150 to "fix" it and were adamant in their stand. I managed to get two customer service reps to concede but they refused to confirm it and get it taken care of, when I called back they had no record of the call. So infuriating.

Re:The kool aid.

[EmagGeek]

That sounds like a legitimate gripe, but not a defect in materials or workmanship, which is what product warranties cover.

If it was sold as a "Bluray Player," then I would not expect it to also play DVDs. Of course, it all depends on carefully parsing what claims are made about the product by the manufacturer, and I imagine that the reason their stance was so firm is that they performed that analysis and determined that they never in fact claimed the device would play DVDs.

Caveat emptor.

Re:The kool aid.

[PPalmgren]

I disagree as it was sold to me with that as advertised functionality, and one of the reasons i bought it (didnt want more boxes). Its analogous to the ps3 removing its OS access with an update, if anything. They can kiss my shiny metal ass and lost a big customer over trying to game the consumers with that legal stance you mentioned. As you well know, techies end up being the go to destinationfor family members looking for the right product, and i no longer like giving samsungs name out due to that shady business experience.

monopoly of the fish world.

[Anonymous Coward]

well... of course this comment must be insightfull! it uses an fish based analogy rather than those tired old car analogies.

I'll let you in on a little secret: even if what you ellude to is true, that the iOS appstore echosystem is a self contained market that in which there might be an antitrust argument against the player that controls it (it doesn't), it doesn't matter...

becoase... well... Apple has a right to decide what software it sells via its distribution channel, just like any other store has the right to curate what it allows and what it doesn't sell. LIKE ANY OTHER FUCKING STORE IN THE WORLD. including, even, those that sell fish.

not that I think that apple will reject google maps, anyway. not while they allow all those other navigation apps..

Is this really a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't Google post a link to the app on their home page, instructing their users to select "Allow apps from unknown sources" like on Android.

There are plenty of banned apps on Android, but they still work fine.

Is this really a problem?

*cough*antitrust!

[unix_core]

Does anyone else here share the suspicion that this whole app-store thing is going to lead to a massive antitrust-war?


And all the lawyers lived happily ever after...

Where's the beef?

[Angostura]

Why not link to the original article? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/05/google-maps-doubt-iphone

The problem that I have with this article is that Google seems to studiously avoid the question "Have you actually written and submitted the app?" If they haven't it seems rather like politicking on Google's behalf. This isn't the world's most complex app - just submit it and **then** complain if it is rejected.

Here's an Idea

[whisper_jeff]

If you think it's going to be rejected then, and this is only an idea, design it so that it follows Apple's clearly published rules for Appstore apps - rules that EVERY other app publisher follows - and that should solve the problem.

I know that's not as fun as intentionally designing your app to break some rules so you know it'll be rejected resulting in a whole PR shitstorm, which is what you're really after, but other app publishers seem to be able to manage to get their apps published so I imagine Google's developers should be smart enough to figure out how to follow the rules. But that's not their goal...

subject

[Legion303]

to ameliorate customers upset with Apple's new default Maps app

They're going to make their customers better? How does that work? And more importantly, why do Slashdot's editors still suck so hard?

Don't hold your breath...

[mschaffer]

Don't hold your breath. Apple thumbs their noses at its consumers and the Judiciary on a regular basis.
Complaining is something that Apple just doesn't respond to.

Walled gardens...

[mschaffer]

Walled gardens are lovely this time of year.

Re:Walled gardens...

[Dan667]

this is a terrible term. garden implies that it is nice. Walled jail is more descriptive.

Re:Walled gardens...

[mschaffer]

But, if they called them "walled jails" it might hurt sales...

It hasn't been rejected, FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to paint a picture of a negative Apple, make sure you complain about the likelyhood of them doing something before they don't do it - then you get page views anyway.

Fucking stupid.

Apple rejects apps that don't work, are misleading, viruses or confuse users by replicating functionality

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't know HOW to complain to these companies. Their surveys and scripted responses make it impossible to talk to someone that can answer a question or respond intelligently.

Write a letter a stick a stamp on it. If you want it to stand up in court then get 'em to sign for it. Now get off my lawn!

That will force me to Android

[Culture20]

The current iOS map app is terrible. No searching for businesses (well, no businesses listed), no street view, etc. I used google maps a lot, and the current app offers nothing new while taking giant leaps backward. And no, maps.google.com via mobile safari doesn't work well enough (because mobile safari has sucked hard since the first iPhone).

Whats not to like?

[Anonymous Coward]

2 evil wannabe monopoliststs duking it out!

What bollocks is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, Ford is the only one you can buy a Ford car from. What, however, can you do with a Ford and ONLY a Ford?

Nothing. It is a fungible good.

Now you can claim the iPhone can be used as a phone like any other smartphone.

However, your apps are tied to that platform. You can't run an Android App on an iPhone and you can't run an iPhone app on an Android.

Therefore they are different markets WHEN IT COMES TO APPLICATIONS.

Smart phones are nice, but!

[f00zbll]

It's a freakin phone people. Pull your collective heads out of your butt. What a bunch of spoiled people. It's not the end of the world. People wonder why America is falling behind Asia and Europe. It's because we (americans) are so wrapped up in pointless stupid crap. I like my smart phone, but that is not in my list of top 100 priorities. Sure it's fun, but it's a phone!

Patent monopoly

[tepples]

Smartphones? Apple does not have a monopoly here and never has.

That depends on how long the Apple v. Samsung decision stands.

This is why I haven't upgraded

[DigitalSorceress]

I have an iPhone 4s and I'm happily NOT "upgraded" to the new iOS. I heard about the maps kerfuffle and said "you know, the phone works well enough as it is, and I DO occasionally use the Google Maps app and I don't like where Apple's going with this one"

So, until my phone refuses to work, I'll just keep on my current version of iOS.

If Apple gets too much more douchy, I may well decide to go with a competing product next time around.

Re:This is why I haven't upgraded

[dhammond]

And this is also why I didn't end up buying an iPhone for my wife.

I'm a happy Android user, but when I was looking at getting my wife her first smartphone, I was thinking about going with an iPhone, mainly because she saw one of her friends playing with Siri and said, "I want that!" I'm glad now that the whole maps problems happened before I bought a phone. She now has a Galaxy Nexus and loves it. The maps on Android are awesome, and one of the apps that both of us use the most.

So, anecdotally, I'd say this is hurting Apple a lot.

Re:This is why I haven't upgraded

[davidbrit2]

If Apple gets too much more douchy, I may well decide to go with a competing product next time around.

Same. iOS 6 was mostly a turd; sure, it added the ability to view only flagged emails, and also upload images directly from Safari, but it also thoroughly ruined the built-in maps, and did almost nothing to modernize the OS. Oh, and Passbook? Are people actually using that? They did step up the per-app privacy settings, which I applaud, but it should have been called iOS 5.2, honestly.

Android 4.0 finally added support for SSL VPN clients, which, for me, is absolutely not up for negotiation at this point (otherwise I'd be giving WP8 a serious look too). I picked up a Nexus 7 for the hell of it. Unless iOS 7 is a huge leap forward, I could see this being a realistic option.

Patent monopoly

[tepples]

What "clear cut" monopoly position are they abusing?

The monopoly position described by the court in Apple v. Samsung.

Total Carnage

[Anonymous Coward]

I like it.

well, yes, and no

[Anonymous Coward]

They are using some data, but not nearly enough. In fact, in pretty much all of Sweden OSM has WAY WAY superior data, almost always superior to Google Maps in fact. Why Apple didn't choose to go with OSM data fully (at least outside the US) is really surprising and, I think, a big mistake.

Re:Is protecting your privacy a reason to hate App

[Anonymous Coward]

Google seems to learn your routes over time. At least it seems this way. About a month ago they must have expaned the artificial intellegence. About 10 minutes before I left work, I get a message on my phone telling my my commute time to home would be delayed about 15 minutes because of an accident on a road i travel home on. The next morning about 10 minutes before I left for work, same type of message describing my commute to work. I now get them all of the time. I never purposfully signed up for these messages, I never told them when to send them. Google knows because of my patterns when i leave for work and when i leave for home. Freaky to some but it is very convienennt to me. They already have the data on my travels and commutes, as does Sprint my carrier and the FBI, CIA and any other government agency since the first day I ever got a cell phone 15 years ago. At least I'm now getting something useful from that data as well.

Need Good Maps back!

[Anonymous Coward]

After traveling and becoming very frustrated with all of Apple's maps to date, I want Google maps back. Apple provides the BEST so where is Google maps?

Does support addresses, just not romanji...

[SuperKendall]

I'm in Japan and the new Apple maps does not support addresses in Japan. There is no way to use any bookmarked locations with the new app.

It does support addresses in Kanji, just not ones in roman characters (which the old maps did, and I think what it saved bookmarked addresses in). That is unfortunate, but it will hopefully come back in an update.

Bullshit - many apps make it through first review

[SuperKendall]

Because the first submitted version will never make it through the review process. Very FEW apps have made it through the review process without initial rejection.

That is bullshit, plain and simple. I have shipped (or been involved with shipping) dozens of apps, only a handful got rejected the first time in and that was because of things that they obviously should have been rejected for (crashing).

The review process is really not as dire as anyone makes it out to be, it is easily passed by someone with even the most minimal knowledge of coding and the understanding Apple just wants stable apps. They do not even particularly care how good they look, just that they work AND that they match the description you give for what they will do.

Add revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about LBS add revenue. Appple can host a competitors content and allow them to derive the location based add revenue, or they can deny google maps and capture the revenue. No brainer. The first iteration of a mapping product iwll have a lot of bugs but the longer you wait the harder it becomes, and the more market penetration your competitior has made using your own platform. And, no, they don't want google map apps, for the reason stated. Sorry gmap fanboys ; )

Have you actually had problems with Apple maps?

[swb]

I don't use any GPS navigation and generally only used the old Maps app for the "last mile" location of someplace new and obscure. It worked well enough but occasionally didn't get addresses right or couldn't find an address for some new office park-type development.

Since the change, I've started using turn-by-turn to see how "bad" it is. Every time I've done so, the directions have been perfect, down to the side of the road where a location was.

I used it the other day (actually kind of relying on it) to find a specific business in one of those awful suburban shopping areas where you have 10 different strip malls all connected by a maze of weird streets, some one-way. Perfect.

About the only gripe I've had is that it seems to prefer to call roads that have a numeric designation by a road name that nobody uses. US 169 in Chaska was referred to as "Johnson Memorial Highway" (which I think it is, but there's little if any signage that uses this) and MN 41 was called "Chestnut Street" when the signage mostly refers to it as MN 41.

I'm kind of baffled by the relentless complaints about it. A friend in NYC complained about the transit info, but based on my last trip there Google's subway info was not very good compared to that of a dedicated app tied into MTA info (iTrans NYC, which was so good it would tell you what subway entrances and exits were best suited to your overall trip).

Another example...

[Brannoncyll]

of why having someone else control what software you can and cannot use on your computer is a bad idea.

passing by

[tranquille]

I've never seen anything spectacular about apple,especially d phones. there is always something wrong....my view.

Re:"Opt-in" my hairy ass! You shill.

[Drathos]

In Google Maps for Android, Latitude is off by default. You have to explicitly turn it on.

Latitude

[phorm]

And lack of latitude in the ios version of Google Maps was a PITA. Most times I have it off, but when I'm taking a long trip, I like to share my location with the wife etc in case I run into trouble on the road. It didn't work between my Android and her iphone, but at least she could view my location on Google Maps if she wanted.

My step-father is a trucker and we wanted to setup something similar for him, as often it's a worry if he's driving on bad winter roads. It also helps to estimate if he's going to hit home in time for dinner. It doesn't work for his iPhone either. Annoying.

Lawsuit

[nilbog]

I hope Apple does deny it and I hope we get a anti-competitive lawsuit like the one for IE and Windows. It's 2012, and iOS should let you install apps from any source, not just the Apple controlled app store.

Sure, Google, keep lying....

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, Google? Worried that Apple won't approve a Google Maps app, so they won't even try?

Yet, there's Google Earth in the App Store. No problem having that one approved.

There's also tons of other mapping apps, including Street View, using Google's API, that got approved in the App Store.

This reeks of Google not wanting to do the work, and trying to spin it as Apple being the bad guy.

"Don't be evil?" - my ass!

Apple will approve a Google Maps application - Google just wont ship one.

Hasn't been rejected yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

It hasn't been rejected yet, so it's fine to complain now.

What wouldn't be fine is complaining after.

At least according to Apple, who say this is the wrong thing to do.

Given the apple fans were saying "Wait until AFTER it's been rejected", I find it rather amusing that this is precisely what Apple say you shouldn't do. I guess this would allow the apple fans to say "Well, you should have complained BEFORE". I.e. whichever way, Google loses.

Re:"Opt-in" my hairy ass! You shill.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most blatantly homosexual but probably unintentional comment headline of 2012?

Apple hasn't done anything yet

[aherstein]

If they do actually reject the app, THEN you have the right to complain.

Of course Apple wont approve GMaps

[ThePeices]

Of course Apple wont approve it, as it would be "duplicating core functionality".

Apple still somehow think that their product is *always* better than the competition, even when the competition is better.

This is why, for example, there is no touchscreen keyboard innovation on iOS. Apple still think that their onscreen keyboard is the peak of touchscreen keyboard design that cannot ever be improved due to its complete and utter perfection. So while better third party keyboards are allowed on the app store, you cannot make any of them the default keyboard, which renders them all useless. Want real innovation? Go to Android.

What a load of horseshit.

Apple truly is the new Microsoft.

When will we finally get to see anti-trust litigation against Apple? It should have happened a long time ago.

How is "duplicates the functionality" defined?

[tepples]

Apple's clearly published rules for Appstore apps

Has Apple clearly published on what basis it judges whether a particular application duplicates the functionality of an iOS feature?

we've all been someone's bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine losing all that data? That's what Apple did to me with this unannounced change.

It happens to everyone. The first time, you're an unwittingly victim, and you have our sincere sympathies.

Next time you'll be thinking, "That's what I did to myself, by going out of my way to make myself be some proprietary strangler's bitch." Then there won't be a third time, because by then you'll have grokked the pattern.

Don't build castles on sand. Don't put your eggs in someone else's basket. It's all so common-sensy, in retrospect. But in real life, as you're setting yourself up for inevitable disaster, it's not so obvious. Fog of war.

Re:Is protecting your privacy a reason to hate App

[scot4875]

Apple having to make concessions so Google could continue to expand on the location of personalized geo-based data does not seem like a good idea to me.

Rationalization. Also could be worded, "Apple preventing users from making this decision on their own is a good thing."

users of iOS products were better off with Apple saying no

Rationalization again.

In around a year the two maps will be equivalent for searches and iOS users will have a more readable map with less user tracking that Apple abandoning Google brought them.

Speculation.

I have used the navigation feature quite often and never had an issue, in fact when going to my house it chooses a route that is one I have been using for years, instead of a somewhat more roundabout path Google Maps always chose.

Anecdote.

What it boils down to is that Apple users have less functionality and more restrictions. End of story. You can rationalize it however you want, but reading your spin day in and day out is pretty pathetic.

--Jeremy

Re:Is protecting your privacy a reason to hate App

[SuperKendall]

That remains to be seen, Nostradamus. So far they don't seem to be doing a very good job fulfilling your prophecy.

Yes they have. Maps already works fine in my area and they have been fixing errors.

Better than Google which had kept a bad Arbys location for years (and unlike complaining that Apple gets maps wrong in an area you do not actually care about, that error caused a problem for me on a real trip). I would have corrected that for Google but did not see a means to submit a correction.

That's because the Google app is basing it's recommendation from data for the roads, traffic conditions, and travel times.

And that's why it chose a SLOWER route? Apple takes into account all those factors too. There is no difference between the two routes in terms of traffic levels, Google's is just slightly longer. The route I have used for years and the one Apple decide to show me is simply the fastest way. It's slightly more complex in that you have to follow a road around a bend; I honestly think it's a small bug in Google's routing algorithm that it's not considering it.

So it's not showing you the "best" route, it's showing you the route you've already told them you prefer to take.

Again, I take the same route all the time. Google never once showed me the route I actually take. Apple did without even knowing I preferred it.

When Google has everything there is no "Anon"

[SuperKendall]

What you are hinting at is a real privacy problem. Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon, AT&T and Google all get user's location data and then use that for commercial reasons

But Apple and Nokia just use the data internally. Google uses it to figure out which third party ads to provide you with.

With Google, at least we can have the belief that they know how to do data filtering and anonymization.

We do? I sure don't. All I know is they have a TON of data on me from other sources (like Google ads, or using Google to search, or your gmail account) and they can tie that also in with your driving too. I greatly prefer to segment as much of my data between companies as possible, which is also why I'm moving out of GMail.

That's not enough though; there should definitely be laws, as there are in Europe for mobile operators, which protect the subscriber's privacy.

None of those protect you from Google connecting the dots with all the data you give them directly.

Good luck keeping all your anonymous eggs in that single giant, juicy basket.

Re:When Google has everything there is no "Anon"

[rtfa-troll]

What you are hinting at is a real privacy problem. Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Verizon, AT&T and Google all get user's location data and then use that for commercial reasons

But Apple and Nokia just use the data internally. Google uses it to figure out which third party ads to provide you with.

As you should know, Nokia doesn't have any choice in this matter any more, having handed control over to Microsoft; on the other hand Microsoft provides targetted advertising which 100% guarantees to leak information . Microsoft targets based on things

including age, gender, location, time of day operating system [ ... ] recent online activity [... and ... ] consumers engaged with particular categories of online content

Which barely starts on the fact that they are one of Facebook's major partners.

With Google, at least we can have the belief that they know how to do data filtering and anonymization.

We do? I sure don't. All I know is they have a TON of data on me from other sources (like Google ads, or using Google to search, or your gmail account) and they can tie that also in with your driving too. I greatly prefer to segment as much of my data between companies as possible, which is also why I'm moving out of GMail.

Now, in this case I'm not going to contradict you at all. Any mail you have stored with any form of online provider can be accessed by US authorities at will and without a warrant since they claim not to consider it your property. In principle and on principle you do not want to use any of Gmail, Facebook, Hotmail or anything similar for any of your mail. The problem though is that running your own mail server with proper spam filtering is a complete pain. Unless you find a very clever solution your practical actual security with anything other than Gmail is likely to be much lower. Remember, for example, that Gmail has caught a large number of attempts by Chinese sponsored hackers to break into accounts. It is known that the same attempts are made against hotmail (read logs of various proxies which were "counter-hacked") but at the same time Microsoft has never made announcements equivalent to Gmail's.

This means that, at best, Hotmail is sacrificing user security for market perception by not warning users what actions they should take to secure themselves. At worst Hotmail is completely unaware of the ways that they have been penetrated and is basically acting as one huge trap.

That's not enough though; there should definitely be laws, as there are in Europe for mobile operators, which protect the subscriber's privacy.

None of those protect you from Google connecting the dots with all the data you give them directly.

Good luck keeping all your anonymous eggs in that single giant, juicy basket.

Actually, the European laws do quite specifically prohibit that. More importantly, if Google did connect dots and prove that I'm a naturalised space alien, for example, they would be liable for any damage that caused me. Especially if they sold that data.

Beyond that; I agree. It's a good idea to support any service providers beyond Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Apple/Nokia/AT&T etc. The market would be much better if people went to different individual providers much more. The problem here is convenience. Just realise that avoiding Microsoft and Facebook should be your first priority. After that avoiding Google, Nokia, Verizon and so on. Only later on is it worth starting to worry about other smaller data providers such as twitter.

Re:When Google has everything there is no "Anon"

[SuperKendall]

Any mail you have stored with any form of online provider can be accessed by US authorities at will and without a warrant since they claim not to consider it your property. In principle and on principle you do not want to use any of Gmail, Facebook, Hotmail or anything similar for any of your mail.

I don't care what the government does with my email. They are too inept to care about. Nor do I care if the Chinese are reading my email. In fact since you have to assume someone is reading your email (if nothing else server admins), I simply assume it's close to public. All I care about is that data in my email is not easily linked to other data from other online activities. So I simply need to be one step removed from Google, which I use for a number of other things (like text search where they are still by far the best option).

Actually, the European laws do quite specifically prohibit that.

Please provide a link with details. That is not at all the case as I understand the EU privacy laws. It's not the case with partner companies I have worked with there. They are OK as long as they are simply correlating data they get from a user within their system.

Just realise that avoiding Microsoft and Facebook should be your first priority.

Generally I agree with that (I hardly use Facebook and almost never use it for logins to sites) but Microsoft may not be as bad in this regard as you are making them out to be... I'd be comfortable with them as one of a number of service providers.

CNET disagrees.

[TimHunter]

Yes, Apple will approve Google Maps for iOS
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57545241-37/yes-apple-will-approve-google-maps-for-ios/