Slashdot Mirror
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."
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'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.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Google didn't write the pre-ios6 Maps app, Apple did. It just used the Google Maps API.
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.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.