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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[lochnessie]

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

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: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.

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:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo!!!

BURRREEEE BURRREEEEE BURRREEEEE

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

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: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: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).

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.