Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uber Wants To Buy Nokia's Mapping Services

Posted by timothy on from the where-you-are dept.

jfruh writes: When Nokia sold its handset business to Microsoft, one of the services left that it intended to rebuild the company on was Here, its rival to Google Maps. But now a deal is said to be in the works to sell Here to Uber, a company that relies heavily on navigation services and that doesn't want to end up too reliant on Google, a potential rival in the futuristic self-driving car business.

45 comments

  1. They better be fast by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    I hear Baidu wants them also.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:They better be fast by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They should just support and contribute to OpenStreetMap. The world does not need yet another proprietary map system, and Uber needs to focus on their core business rather than getting side tracked into a lot of silly vertical integration.

    2. Re:They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      SystemD is perfect and will never need an update.

    3. Re:They better be fast by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their core business is moving out of the taxi service and into financial markets. 3 Billion dollars, how long have these people been around to get that kind of money?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because there is no such thing as a competitive advantage when it comes to technology.

    5. Re:They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They got some dumbasses to take on all the risk while they get the profit - perfect Wall St material.

    6. Re:They better be fast by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Right, because there is no such thing as a competitive advantage when it comes to technology.

      Unless your tech is better, there is no advantage. How is Uber's proprietary map system going to be better than what Google, Apple, etc. have already done? They should either sign a long term license agreement with an established incumbent, or they should contribute to an open platform. Either will be far cheaper than building and maintaining their own system.

    7. Re:They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You should read "The Halo Effect" http://www.amazon.com/The-Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions/dp/1476784035

      "Focus on their core business" is only seen as wise with the benefit of hindsight when it works well. When they lose market-share because of "The Innovator's Dilemma" then they are suddenly buffoons for being complacent and not innovating.

      If these "maps" investments(Autonomous Cars BTW) pay off should we expect a retraction/public back pedaling to match the "I told you so's" that we can expect if this doesn't go well for them?

    8. Re:They better be fast by reikae · · Score: 1

      I've seen many people do it so I'm wondering: is the strange capitalization part of the joke? I doubt one would write RSysLogD, for example.

    9. Re:They better be fast by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      "Focus on their core business" is only seen as wise with the benefit of hindsight when it works well. When they lose market-share because of "The Innovator's Dilemma" then they are suddenly buffoons for being complacent and not innovating.

      Uber certainly needs to innovate. Autonomous cars are coming. Digital, constantly updated maps, are already here. Uber should USE these technologies, but they do not need to BUILD their own.

      Many companies use the electric grid, the phone system, and the internet. But that doesn't mean they need to design and build their own generators, string up private phone lines to all their customers, and use a proprietary protocol to communicate. They can just use existing infrastructure.

      Likewise, Uber can just use existing map data, and buy autonomous cars from ... a car company. Instead, they should focus on building out a system of renting autonomous cars by the minute/hour/day. There is a big first mover advantage, and they have a lot of competitors (Zipcar, Lyft, and possibly Google).

    10. Re: They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The capital D in systemD frightenens and confuses the low order thinkers that are systemD supporters.

    11. Re:They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, Uber think's it will be better for their use case (routing taxis), or they wouldn't be moving away from their current google and apple combination solution.

    12. Re:They better be fast by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Maps, schmaps! They need to put on a show. Why is nobody going to jail? These scams are amazing!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair Nokia Here is at least as good as google maps and it shits all over Apples mapping. I also think it is a bad idea for them, but they certainly are targeting a leading provider at least

    14. Re:They better be fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      surely Uber need to concentrate on breaking fewer laws, even for a Multinational they are pretty extreme in their disregard for societies rules

    15. Re:They better be fast by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Their core business is moving out of the taxi service and into financial markets. 3 Billion dollars, how long have these people been around to get that kind of money?

      But...but...they're not a taxi service!

      They're innovative bleeding-edge disruptive paradigm shifters in the 21st century liberalised transportation market.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Re: Happy Saturday from The Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is relevant because I'm currently watching the Golden Girls.

  3. Have' HERE' won't travel by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    It was free download; got what I paid for. UBER is out of their league tackling reincarnation of a dead product that doesn't work as a _map_. They should buy RIM Blackberry 'Traffic.app. There's a map that routes, directs, updates and beats GoogleMaps and could be bought.

    1. Re:Have' HERE' won't travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I love 'Here', downloaded Paris when I moved there, no need for data connection, unless I want public transport times. I find it clearer than google maps to orientate myself thanks to landmarks (Eiffel tower, odd shaped tower blocks etc) being 3Dish and having different textures. Haven't tried voice navigation. Google maps was really unintuitive about downloading maps, and seemed (they didn't make it clear) to make it difficult to keep maps for long or to download large areas - this might have improved.

      I prefer it to Google maps on my laptop screen even.
      (I have never used the Blackberry one so that might as you say also be better than Google - I just wanted to point out that Here works for me.)

    2. Re:Have' HERE' won't travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've only recently tried out Here and I'm very impressed. Offline maps for my whole country and offline routing that does a pretty damn good job as far as I can tell. It also has realtime traffic updates, but (obviously) only if you have it on online mode. I keep my setting to offline, so I don't know how well that feature works.

      Recommend that people give it a try and, if nothing else, it's worth having in case you get to a spot with flaky phone reception. I like it more than that, though.

    3. Re:Have' HERE' won't travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HERE worked beautifully for me in India. Never tried it after coming back to the US, since I bought my car with a built-in navigation system (actually asked for it, so that I don't have to fiddle with my phone while driving). If Uber wants a good global experience, they are better off buying HERE than relying on something like OpenStreet maps that nobody is accountable for, or depending on Google, which could be dangerous if Google decides to enter the taxi service business

    4. Re:Have' HERE' won't travel by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 2

      One of the reasons that Nokia took pretty much the whole market for Windows Phone was the Here suite of apps; turn by turn navigation, public transport routing, live traffic, downloadable maps and local discovery and all of it integrated into the OS. Very slick. The other reason was the cameras, of course.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
    5. Re:Have' HERE' won't travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was free download; got what I paid for. UBER is out of their league tackling reincarnation of a dead product that doesn't work as a _map_. They should buy RIM Blackberry 'Traffic.app. There's a map that routes, directs, updates and beats GoogleMaps and could be bought.

      It should be pointed out that Nokia owns Navteq and I imagine that's the real part of the deal, not the 'Here Maps' consumer app.

  4. Is it really Google competing with Uber or is it by shione · · Score: 1

    Is it really Google competing with Uber or is it really Uber competing with Google?

    In February this year Uber formed a partnership with Carnegie Mellon University to develop driverless car technology. They're now looking to buy Nokia's map technology for navigation and replace technology provided by Google maps.

    Google says they aren't competing with Uber. Their drive sharing app was made internally for certain employees to carpool to work.

    Google has at least $258M invested in Uber and has their chief legal officer on the Uber board.

    I don't think Google's investment in Uber is anything like ms's partnership with IBM in making OS/2 or ms partnership with opengl. I think the partnership is more akin to Google's relationship with Mozilla back then (which Mozilla later ceased). Google is stronger when there is more than one with their ideas.

  5. Nokia need to make sure they get paid in cash by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

    I don't know how Uber plans to pay for this, but Stock Options are worthless if Uber tanks.

    --
    Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
  6. Nokia maps by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

    Well if they do buy it I hope Uber does more with it than Nokia has. It's in terms of the maps it offers Nokia Maps is actually a pretty decent service and has the potential to give Google a hard time if somebody puts some money into it to add features it is missing and improve existing ones like the satelite view feature.

  7. Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, since Uber needs these services, it would make sense to bring it in-house, plus with all the trip information they gather I'm sure they could contribute to improving Here's map quality.
    The deeper question is, OK Uber is today "valued" at what, 3Bn., but as documented here there business model is being challenged in plenty of places since it's basically illegal in most of them. How long can they go on?

    1. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that's why Uber is trying to diversify, and fast. Amazing that so much money was thrown at this company whose business model was, as you put it, "basically illegal".

      I'm going to start a netsharing company. We're going to put up wifi routers around town and charge people for net service, but we're not going to pay for the outbound connections. Instead we're going to wardrive around cities and wherever we find an poorly secured wifi network, we'll place a repeater there that routes our outbound net traffic through it. We'll be able to offer offer cheaper net access than everyone else, get a bunch of users, and thus a bunch of revenue, and we'll have a huge margin on our balance sheet. Who wants to toss us a few billion dollars?

      Or maybe I should start a construction sharing company. We'll let anyone who wants to be a "builder" sign up and offer construction to anyone who wants the job done. No, they won't be licensed or have any sort of "permits", but that's not our issue, that's theirs. The point is, they'll be able to build things really cheap! And so we'll get a bunch of users, and thus a bunch of revenue, and we'll have a huge margin on our balance sheet. Who wants to toss us a few billion dollars?

      Or maybe I should start a medicine sharing company... or a sex-for-money sharing company... or a software-license sharing company... or a gunsharing company... you see, if you add the word "sharing" to it, it's not really illegal!

      --
      Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
    2. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Uberpop is already banned in Germany I believe, and my government (in the Netherlands) is thinking about it.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by ZipK · · Score: 1

      OK Uber is today "valued" at what, 3Bn.

      $40B and heading to $50B.

    4. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not thinking about it, UberPop is illegal in NL.

    5. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You have some interesting comparison. So you're effectively saying that Uber is stealing? Or Uber is using unlicensed drivers? About the only thing I can agree on is the "permits" but interestingly that is something that I applaud Uber for calling bullshit on, the medallion business.

      About the only legitimate legal issue I've heard (other than above mentioned medallions) is one of insurance, and that is more of a quirk of an insurance industry that someone who drives too and from work every day can be insured, but someone with identical coverage who happens to take someone else for money (commercial) is magically not. It's also a quirk that doesn't exist in many other countries where vehicles are insured for registration purposes regardless who drives them.

      You're making their business model seem far more nefarious than it actually is.

    6. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have the same coverage, as commercial passenger transportation is not allowed. This protects both the passenger an the driver. If there is an accident and it's the drivers fault, he may have to pay millions in pensions, nursing costs, medical bills to the passenger. At least in Germany. The driver's non-commerical insurance won't pay for that. And most Uber-pop drivers can't cough up millions or they wouldn't be working for Uber.

    7. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that they have a business model entirely based on the mass breaking of laws.

      --
      Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
    8. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Like Tesla circumventing laws to sell cars directly to people?

      I don't really shed a tear over breaking laws that seem to exist for the sole purpose of having someone make money from your business.

    9. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      About the only legitimate legal issue I've heard (other than above mentioned medallions) is one of insurance, and that is more of a quirk of an insurance industry that someone who drives too and from work every day can be insured, but someone with identical coverage who happens to take someone else for money (commercial) is magically not. It's also a quirk that doesn't exist in many other countries where vehicles are insured for registration purposes regardless who drives them

      There are pretty obvious reasons why an insurance company would charge more for insuring a taxi driver (or 18 year old in a Ferrari, or someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, or a racing car driver) than someone commuting to work.

      But even putting this aside and assuming that there should or could be some sort of universal flat rate insurance if you nationalised the insurance industry, it is still not up to Uber to ignore or try to circumvent the current legal situation.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Like Tesla circumventing laws to sell cars directly to people?

      I don't really shed a tear over breaking laws that seem to exist for the sole purpose of having someone make money from your business.

      I'm not from the US, but I find it hard to believe that in the land of enterprise you can't sell something to someone.

      However, assuming you're right, it just means that particular law is stupid and should be repealed. It doesn't mean that all laws affecting your business can be ignored.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Could be interesting, but will Uber last? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      However, assuming you're right,

      You don't read slashdot much do you? Actually I kid, but really the endless fight between Tesla and the US states have been covered here many times including Telsa offering a service where they will pickup customers from one state and drive them to a showroom in another to offer them a test drive.

      One way to get laws changed is to show people how absurd those laws really are. Uber is doing a great job of that right now and I sympathise with them on a number of points. But then I live in a country where insurance isn't allowed to differentiate if someone pays you for a lift or if you're car pooling which basically leaves only stupid laws that Uber are "breaking" here.

  8. TomTom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what about TomTom? Wouldn't that be a good candidate or are they perhaps too expensive?

  9. Hahahaha! Good luck Uber! by The_Revelation · · Score: 1

    Here maps is the app that bundles with the Windows phone I believe. This single application is the main reason I score Nokia's Lumia series -1 out of a possible 0 to 5 score, where a score of 0 indicates the product is so defective that owners should request a refund from the manufacturer.

    The phone doesn't do a single thing well, but at least most functionality doesn't involve you reentering the destination while driving every time the screen sleeps. It does other things, like recalculating your route because you just passed under a bridge, meaning your are obviously now driving on the bridge and a number of other equally as amusing quirks.

    There are Samsungs, there are Apples, there are Blackberries and $30 asian smart phones, they all do a better job of mapping compared to Here Maps. I really like Uber's service, but I don't expect it to improve with the involvement of a new, extremely defective mapping system, and I don't think users of the service will be very happy if they have to start interacting with this application.

    1. Re:Hahahaha! Good luck Uber! by UngodAus · · Score: 1

      Did you try turning it on first? I heard that really helps usability. ;)

  10. Apple by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Uh, didn't Nokia already sell they Map division to Apple when Apple was having trouble with Apple Maps after they dropped Google Maps? Apple didn't just instantly map the entire world, they had to acquire all that data...

    Perhaps they just bought a licence to the data, but I had thought that they had just bought it outright. That sounds more like Apple. It would have cost a couple billion, but then they have/had mad cash on hand anyway.