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]

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

[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

[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.

Re:welcome to Nazi computing

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo!!!

BURRREEEE BURRREEEEE BURRREEEEE

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

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.