Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Iphone Apple

Google Backpedals On Turn-By-Turn GPS For iPhone 145

Posted by timothy
from the unforeseen-circumstances dept.
Smurf writes "Last October Google's Vic Gundotra announced that Google would bring turn-by-turn GPS navigation to the iPhone: 'However, Google is working with Apple on bringing it to the iPhone, and it's not ruling out licensing the software to makers of portable navigation devices used in cars throughout the world, said Gundotra, vice president of engineering at Google for mobile and developers.' Nevertheless, after such plans were confirmed during a press conference in London yesterday, today the 'Don't be Evil' company backpedaled on them: '"We did not say we would bring it to iPhone, we said to date we've had it on Android and that in the future it may come to other platforms, but did not confirm this will be coming to iPhone at all," a Google spokesperson told PCWorld.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Backpedals On Turn-By-Turn GPS For iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • Why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:07AM (#31966064)

    Apple is suing Googles allies, and is a rival to the Android platform. Why would Google want to help them by giving people a reason to stay locked into the iPhone when they can just get an Android phone instead? What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by walshy007 (906710)

      What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

      Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.

      • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:25AM (#31966126)

        Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.

        "Turn left at Main Street"
        "Did you know that Main Street Tires has Michelin XGV size 75R14 on sale? They're the same tires used on all the cars in Palo Vista Productions' comedy classic My Cousin Vinny, now available on Blu-Ray from Twentieth Century-Fox "
        "Oh, you should have turned right back on Elm"
        "Did you know ..."

        • Yeah, but Windows Mobile isn't much better.

          "It looks like you're trying to drive to Bethesda. Would you like help writing a letter?"

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by eyrieowl (881195)

        Which would make sense...if Apple were letting Google do ad sales for the iPhone. But Apple has decided they want to try to keep that pie for themselves as well, what with their new ad program. It's not a stretch to think that they will make it more and more difficult for 3rd parties to sell ads on their platform. Which, were I Google, would make me question the value to providing a new, fancy capability for this competitor that is hell-bent on making it difficult for anyone but themselves to make money

        • Re:Why would they? (Score:4, Informative)

          by DJRumpy (1345787) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:11AM (#31966872)

          The new ad API is specifically for developers to use in their applications.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Daengbo (523424)

            Google probably just didn't want to use C, C++, or Obj-C. :P

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by tftp (111690)

            The new ad API is specifically for developers to use in their applications.

            Yes, but who will be profiting from those ads? If Apple wants some considerable cut from ads then Google may be unwilling to bring their competitor as a partner.

            Also Google doesn't need anyone's ad API, they have their own, and a pretty capable too, thank you very much :-)

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by babyrat (314371)

              Also Google doesn't need anyone's ad API, they have their own, and a pretty capable too, thank you very much :-)

              Apple just provides the API - it doesn't require anyone to use it...

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by metamatic (202216)

            ...and the developer agreement specifically prohibits [wired.com] sending device data to the server. That includes the data necessary to measure whether the user actually interacted with the ad.

            i.e. any non-iAd advertising is effectively crippled.

        • by DJRumpy (1345787)

          Almost forgot. Mapquest already has a free turn by turn with voice prompts for iPhone. It's free although not as feature rich as Google's app. Google also powers the existing map app on the iPhone.

        • by mgblst (80109)

          You are confused. Apple has started their own ad system for the iPhone, they haven't stopped anyone else from running their own ads, or doing with a different ad system.

          It is a HUGE stretch to think that they will ban other ad systems from being used, this will get them in lots of trouble.

      • What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

        Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.

        They could also just open maps.google.com in their browser.... The browser does support it, I hope. It runs on the regular stuff most browsers have.

        • by jo_ham (604554)

          You don't even need that - Apple ships a specialised Google Maps app by default with the iPhone. It doesn't do turn by turn, but you can use the direction finding and route planning, and the phone's GPS hardware.

      • What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

        Simply, more eyeballs to sell advertisements to. But in this and some other instances, it seems the cost/benefit to fighting apples system just isn't there.

        Considering in this instance Google is just a developer, most developers must see it the other way... that the cost/benefit to the wonderful android development opportunities just isn't there, and the best way to reach users is to fight apple. I cite the statistics for number of downloads and number of available applications on AppStore and whatever Android's package management is called. AppStore got out the gate a little early, so to be fair, lets check again in 5 years, and see if whatever android's pac

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by teh31337one (1590023)
      Google are fighting back!? Good.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rinoid (451982)

        "google are fighting back"

        Against what for fracks sake?!

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by teh31337one (1590023)

          Apple is suing Googles allies, and is a rival to the Android platform.

          ^ that

        • Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Informative)

          by ajs (35943) <ajsNO@SPAMajs.com> on Saturday April 24, 2010 @02:24PM (#31968688) Homepage Journal

          "google are fighting back"

          Against what for fracks sake?!

          Is that meant as humor? Lessee.. against the rejections of a large chunk of their software suite including latitude and voice (voice, BTW offers the same features now offered across several other iPhone apps that were approved). Against the painfully slow process of getting Apple to update the Google maps app on iPhone. Against the continued taunts of Apples CEO.

          And really, that's just the stuff we see. Google has its own platform, and yet the continue to try to bring their tools to Apple's platform as well, and over and over again Apple rejects them without providing replacements that have even remotely comparable functionality.

    • Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GlassHeart (579618) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @01:30PM (#31968402) Journal

      What does Google gain from people using its free apps on other platforms?

      Wait, so when Apple attempted to lock you in by banning Flash, did you also ask the same question?

      I'm not saying Google is evil or anything like that. I'm saying that if we're only supposed to consider Google's self interest, then don't complain if Apple or Microsoft or Oracle looks out for itself.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:08AM (#31966070)

    Don't be evil company did this. Don't be evil company did that.

    It's like you are trying to force a contrast between Google and not-evil. Sorry if they're not the knight in shining armor from the land of dreams, but they're still a long way ahead of the competition.

    • by Ilgaz (86384) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:26AM (#31966326) Homepage

      "Don't be evil company did this. Don't be evil company did that."

      I am one of the crazy people on Slashdot to question Google's "don't be evil" motto ending up -1 several times along with tinfoil hat jokes but I really fail to understand what kind of "evil" to reject sparing time and huge amount of money for a possibly rejected application.

      Google really did good for mobile this time, at least some people from Apple will figure some companies doesn't like to be treated like a potential virus author and porn distributor.

      • Agreed. I got an Android phone because I knew I was going to get Google's best products (and the google voice search and maps are more than enough to justify my purchase). To insinuate that Google is "evil" because they're competing in a marketplace is just silly.
        • My point is, people forget how expensive and advanced technology turn by turn GPS is just because they get it free these days.

          Just the map data Nokia bought cost billions. They (Apple) think compaies will gamble their millions to the first platform on IT history which your application can rejected. Look around, you can even download/install MAINFRAME utilities to a $20M IBM Z10 and use them.

    • by rwa2 (4391) *

      Well, the GMM nav voice does sound pretty sexy. Even bordering on pornographic, I might say.

    • It's a nickname, like CoCo for Conan O'Brien, Bennifer for Ben Affleck and J Lo, and J Lo for Jennifer Lopez. Nicknames tend to stick, and this one Google just invented for himself (companies are people, does it say which gender?)

      Although, it works better when whatever they are accused of is actually evil.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:09AM (#31966072)
    Make turn by turn for the iPhone, but make it so that it directs users to drive off cliffs. Imagine the look on their faces when they realize what just happened!
    • Without a 'front facing camera' Google will never be able to get the pic uploaded to formeriphoneusers.bye ;-)

      Reminds me of when Homer was faxing Chaka Khan for help as his car went off the pier when his windshield got foggy after deep frying tater tots in the front seat while driving.
    • by SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:18AM (#31966104) Homepage

      That's already a feature [bbc.co.uk] on some devices.

      • What thought process does it take to follow a sat nav when it instructs you to go off road down a rocky path?

        • Meh, guilty as charged. Once followed my GPS down a pithole filled dirt road when there was a proper much better route I should have taken.

        • What thought process does it take to follow a sat nav when it instructs you to go off road down a rocky path?

          Answer: a.

          To clarify for the the people that follow satnav blindly: As in "a thought process".

          Don't ask what kind of IQ it takes to do something stupid when the answer is "an IQ". You would be amazed how many times people just don't think. Like stepping into an elevator when the doors open and there is no elevator. It happens. How? Because people often just don't think. At least not "hmmm that is

        • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

          Perhaps the one where he didn't have a clue where he was going? That's usually why people use sat-nav.

          He just said "Wait a minute, that's not right at all" much, much later than he would have had he not been focusing on the sat-nav.

          Of course, he'd probably be miles away from his destination and much more lost without it, but hey, whatever!

        • by xaxa (988988)

          What thought process does it take to follow a sat nav when it instructs you to go off road down a rocky path?

          It's a similar thought process to the one that people follow when they follow their sat-nav onto [telegraph.co.uk] railway [bbc.co.uk] tracks [bbc.co.uk].

    • by h00manist (800926)

      Make turn by turn for the iPhone, but make it so that it directs users to drive off cliffs. Imagine the look on their faces when they realize what just happened!

      GPS coordinates for painful 90mph death cliffs please.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Apple's behavior towards developers for the iPhone has always stuck me as a "You should feel privaleged to develop for our platform." Think about it, if you invest a lot of time and money into developing for a platform, you expect to reap the rewards of that work based on the merits of your program. Apple has decided that you should only reap those rewards if you conform to a strict ever changing set of arbitrary guidelines that are enforced in a sometimes hap-hazard way.

    Well at some point it will come ti

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DJRumpy (1345787)

      I know it's popular to bash Apple these days but if you recall, Google gained inside knowledge of the iPhone from their close ties with Apple. They broke those ties and created Droid. Apple denied google's app after that fact. Tit for Tat. Google is hardley innocent here no matter what open platform they develop.

      As to how they treat developers, the rules are posted and any who wander into questionable areas have to accept that thy may be rejected. All to often we hear someone submitted an app that they knew

      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        Google gained inside knowledge of the iPhone from their close ties with Apple. They broke those ties and created Droid.

        I don't see how that has any bearing on this issue. And Google didn't create "Droid", Droid is a phone (with what I think is a cheap and retarded name). Google created "Android", which is a mobile OS.

        Android is not like iPhone OS in very many ways. It's a competitor sure, but tit for tat is petty childish stuff. Wanting to make their own system because they think they can do better is hardly a sin. Saying they deserve punishment for it is, frankly, wrong. Apple approved, then unapproved Google's app b

        • by node 3 (115640) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @02:19PM (#31968656)

          Google created "Android", which is a mobile OS.

          No, it was created by Android, Inc., which Google later bought. If you're going to be pedantic about it...

          Android is not like iPhone OS in very many ways. It's a competitor sure, but tit for tat is petty childish stuff. Wanting to make their own system because they think they can do better is hardly a sin.

          No, they aren't doing it because they think they can do better. They're doing it because they want to get their ads on the increasingly lucrative smartphone market.

          Saying they deserve punishment for it is, frankly, wrong. Apple approved, then unapproved Google's app because they wanted to make their own (I forget which app it was, exactly, I recall it being a big deal though).

          First off, Apple didn't approve, then unapprove, Google Voice. And no, Apple did not make their own Google Voice app (or Apple Voice app, or anything like that). They didn't approve it because it was designed to replace the core phone functionality of the iPhone, which is very consistent with Apple's previous actions.

          But all that aside, it's extremely ironic that you say Apple shouldn't retaliate against Google for Android, but that Google should retaliate against Apple for not approving Google Voice.

          Rather than compete in their own marketplace, they decided to stifle the competition so their app would be the only option. That is just plain evil.

          Name one such app that Apple has in the App Store that they refuse competing apps for. The only thing they do that is even similar to what you are saying is they don't approve apps that replace certain fundamental functions of the iPhone. This isn't due to competition, but due to wanting to ensure a specific, consistent user experience that has a certain level (to Apple, at least) of quality. You may not agree with their decision to do things like this, but it's worked well for them, and it's absolutely absurd to call it "evil".

          So it sounds like Google has simply said "Fine, if you don't want to work with us, why should we work with you?" What it means is now pretty much everything but the iPhone will have the best free turn-by-turn navigation system on the planet. Way to go Apple!

          Yawn. If the single biggest knock against Apple is that they don't have Google's GPS Nav app, Apple is still coming out ahead in the game.

          Even with all that, Google didn't say they *won't* release their app for the iPhone, and from a business standpoint, it would be counterproductive for them to specifically *not* create one. The reason is that they will be deliberately missing out on revenue. No one (in any statistically relevant number) is going to buy an Android phone over an iPhone solely due to the lack or presence of Google's GPS Nav app. So Google may be able to get a few more ads on a few more Android phones, while simultaneously giving up on a *load* of ads on tons of iPhones.

          • by HunterD (13063)

            You forget, Apple has:

            A) Banned any advertising network other then it's own from doing any analytics of any kind. This drastically lowers the effectiveness (and thus the value) of any ads google can deliver. If google can't target an ad based on any information coming from the phone, they have lost all of their vast analytical value.

            B) Google most certainly did not implement their turn by turn in Objective C. Since apple has banned implementing any app in any non apple language and then cross compiling,

            • by node 3 (115640)

              You forget, Apple has:

              A) Banned any advertising network other then it's own from doing any analytics of any kind. This drastically lowers the effectiveness (and thus the value) of any ads google can deliver. If google can't target an ad based on any information coming from the phone, they have lost all of their vast analytical value.

              I think you mean, Apple has banned using geolocation for ads.

              B) Google most certainly did not implement their turn by turn in Objective C. Since apple has banned implementing any app in any non apple language and then cross compiling, Google would have to reimplement the entire thing from scratch.

              C and C++ are perfectly acceptable.

      • I know it's popular to bash Apple these days but if you recall, Google gained inside knowledge of the iPhone from their close ties with Apple. They broke those ties and created Droid. Apple denied google's app after that fact. Tit for Tat. Google is hardley innocent here no matter what open platform they develop.

        The problem here is arbitrary application of rules. If Google's app was indeed approved as GP says, and Apple reversed their decision based solely on the fact that Google is now competing with them, then it just goes to show that no-one can truly trust Apple review process in any way whatsoever, and all rules they have are just rubbish.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by node 3 (115640)

          The problem here is arbitrary application of rules. If Google's app was indeed approved as GP says, and Apple reversed their decision based solely on the fact that Google is now competing with them, then it just goes to show that no-one can truly trust Apple review process in any way whatsoever, and all rules they have are just rubbish.

          Except that's not what happened, so it doesn't show any of the things you said it did.

          It's even worse that than. Even if what was said is what happened (it's not), the thing about "no one can trust the process in any way, all rules are rubbish" is patently false. Thousands of developers have successfully trusted Apple's review process, and many of the rules have kept buggy, crappy software out of the App Store (people like to point out the Fart app as a counter-example to this, but consider that the Fart ap

          • by Xyde (415798)

            Note that fart apps were initially banned until there was a massive outcry (even on this very site as I recall); now they're the perfect example when disparaging the App Store to try and make Android look better. The hypocrisy is staggering.

      • by HunterD (13063) <legolas&evilsoft,org> on Saturday April 24, 2010 @02:00PM (#31968548) Homepage

        A) Google has been developing Android for years. They purchased the company who initially developed Android before the release of the first iPhone. Apple got it's panties in a knot when google finally released it.

        B) Maps is definitely not developed in C, C++ and Objective C, so getting the code to run on an iphone would violate their approval policies.

        C) No sane development shop should be developing on the iPhone platform anyway. When an arbitrary and capricious bureaucracy can kill your income stream at a whim and has been shown to do so on a regular and increasingly common basis, the level of risk there is unreasonable. Releasing an iPhone app is a solid reason for your company's stock to go /down/, as it shows that the management team is reckless with a company's resources.

        D) It always galls me that iPhone users seem to have some sort of feeling of entitlement towards getting everything they want. Google doesn't do /free/ turn by turn for your OS and that makes them evil? Get over yourselves. You are not entitled to google making anything for free for you.

        Google not making a free app that many companies sell for hundreds of dollars on an OS that explicitly bans them from reusing their code developed by a business that has been shown to be highly hostile to them may be the dumbest reason I've ever see floated for them having violated "don't be evil".

      • by fabs64 (657132)

        Apple has started suing other companies over meaningless software patents, they need to be bashed, and bashed hard.

        "Tit for tat" sure, maybe, but Apple's assault on HTC is amazingly below the belt compared to any of the other stuff.

      • by mgblst (80109)

        I agree with you, and actually do think that as a developer, I am privileged to work on the iPhone system, and appreciate the efforts Apple have made to make it so easy to earn money from their device.

        However, you say the rules are out there, but they do keep changing them, like the recent 3.3.1 change that forbids using some tools and frameworks.

        Also, a few months ago they removed 1000 of apps, some which have been on the store for over a year. Now, I agree with them removing a number of these apps, they w

    • by dangitman (862676)

      "You should feel privaleged to develop for our platform."

      They pretty much are. Not very many platforms can deliver such a large quantity of instant sales to a developer for so little effort. It's a frickin' gold mine.

    • by Wovel (964431)

      What mobile platform are developers large and small making more money on? (Rhetorical) .......It is in fact a privilege. Does it help Apple yes, does it help developers yes.

  • by Angostura (703910) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:15AM (#31966092)

    ... that would help me parse the article summary.

    • Really? Google previously said one thing. Nevertheless, they backpedaled and said something different. Was it that hard?

      • The article summary was 'meh', but the summary summary was spot on ... though it did break my sarcasm detector, so now I'll need another one of those. I wonder if Google Maps on my iPhone can guide to me a store that sells them?
    • by Blakey Rat (99501)

      First provide one for your subject line.

  • Why not sooner... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wierdy1024 (902573) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:25AM (#31966128)

    I don't understand why all mobile makers are so touchy about turn-by-turn navigation.

    When you've paid for the map data, and got GPS hardware in your device, it seems crazy not to implement turn by turn navigation, since the added software development cost is pretty minimal.

    I suspect the problem is more of a licensing one - for example, when turn by turn navigation came out for android, it was US only for a while. A hack existed to enable it in the rest of the world, but that was soon stopped by google. Only later did it get released for the rest of the world.

    Considering that it worked with a hack, it can't have been a softwatre issue that was preventing worldwide release - the only possibility is that licensing and company politics was getting in the way. Maybe people like tomtom get exclusive rights to do navigation on map data, and therefore while google has rights to use the maps, they don't have rights to do turn by turn directions with them?

    • Yes AFAIK it is a licensing issue. Ever noticed when you use Google Maps it says "Copyright" by someone which is not Google? These people also sell map data to the GPS handset manufacturers and would much prefer to keep their royalties, thank you. Nokia is like the one exception in that they bundle Ovi Maps with their cellphones by default. I would hope this eventually gets standard, rather than relying on a web connection for navigation.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jeti (105266)

        AFAIK there only were two companies that could provide turn by turn information (NavTeq and Tele Atlas). Nokia bought NavTeq and TomTom bought Tele Atlas. Shortly after that, Google fell out with Tele Atlas. That's when Google started its Streetview cars, which also collect turn by turn information.

      • by Ilgaz (86384)

        Navteq belongs to Nokia and yet, it is been rumored that EU called Nokia and said "Don't do a crazy thing like enabling maps on every Nokia device for free." because of monopoly reasons. It didn't stop a prestigious and unique solution provider, Wayfinder going out of business.

        Google has also reached to some point that, they may wish "free nav" isn't really hurting companies prompting a monopoly "talk". If that monopoly talks start, they never stop you know. They are gathering great amounts of really person

        • by goombah99 (560566) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:08AM (#31966844)

          Navteq belongs to Nokia

          Hmmm the plot thickens. Nokia does have a major axe to grind with apple. If all google maps come from a company owned by nokia you could see them not agreeing to lic them to google for use on apple.

          • If there wasn't a working anti monopoly system in EU, all Nokia devices you see around (including S40!) would have free maps/navigation today.

            EU said "E71 (pre. gen) etc. are OK but don't get such a crazy idea." to them and they just "opened up" for E66 and E71.

            It isn't Nokia's attitude anyway, they are very different from Apple in that manner. If Apple went to them and wanted to license Symbian, I bet they would happily license it. It happened with Samsung, their real rival, Omnia HD is something running S

  • by h00manist (800926) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:29AM (#31966138) Journal
    As much as I like Google for all it's well-built, low-annoyance stuff, I have to admit there is just a fundamental, structural problem with companies - they need lots of income to keep going. I myself run, opened and closed a few... All planetary data being owned by a company is going to be a problem. But it's our own fault for directing all our attention, energy, and monies to companies, instead of community owned projects. For example there is Open Street Map [openstreetmap.org] there to prove that we can build stuff we own all by ourselves, no companies involved, thank you very much. Where we get salaries or monies to pay for bills and expenses is a problem, but problems always have many solutions. Open source civil engineering perhaps...
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stephenn1001 (1780930)
      Why not turn the "company" into an open source one? How about the "Open Source Business Model" OSBM: - Everything is "open": The books, the "source", who owns shares, even the business model/plan. - "Work" is submitted to the "shareholders", and if they approve, then one share is given for each hour worked. - One hour = one share. Everyone's time is equal. - People who already own shares vote on who gets the hours (yes, it is a club, but you can always fork!) - All expenses and "contracted hours" are voted
    • by ortholattice (175065) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:26AM (#31966598)
      I hadn't visited OpenStreetMaps in several years (it was an interesting project, but a little crude and sparse back then), so out of curiosity (prompted by your post) I went there to see how it has progressed. I am impressed! I don't know about how it fares overall, but someone has put an awful of work into Lexington, MA where I live. What most impressed me the most is that it includes the walking trails in the conservation land areas, which Google does not. Compare Whipple Hill on OpenStreetMap [openstreetmap.org] with Whipple Hill on Google Maps [google.com]. (The hyperlinks are much shorter too...) So, finally I don't have to guess when I encounter partially overgrown trails on my frequents walks through them. This project needs to be more widely publicized. I had no idea how much it has improved.
      • by h00manist (800926)

        This project needs to be more widely publicized.

        Yeah I agree. Went to a meet of theirs in Sao Paulo and spoke to some map-making guys. Heard that in London it's the best map by far. I started to contribute to it sometimes. Yahoo had apparently made some huge contribution a little while ago with some satellite images.

      • by CODiNE (27417)

        Don't forget 3rd world countries where there may be a lack of actual maps in existence. OpenStreetMaps lets the locals take care of themselves and accomplish what their government and corporations either can't or won't do.

        Just wait til OSM gets big enough to start costing google serious marketshare, then google will start sending copyright violation claims bankrupting the project while they constantly have to fight to prove their edits were homemade.

    • No companies except Yahoo! which allows OSM to use their map data, and local governments which donate data or are required by law to make such data publically available, and country governments which provide additional data. So the govs contract out the work, some of it anyway, to companies, and we pay for it with our taxes.

      OSM is cool, and I added my neighborhood and then it showed up on Google Maps. That's cool. I did it by tracing satellite pictures from Yahoo!.

      Community-owned projects are good, but i

  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:32AM (#31966154) Journal

    Whenever anyone speaks in generalities about offering great things in the future, she always thinks they're talking about her.

    "Other platforms" really doesn't mean many options if you're talking about the smart phone market, but it also is not synonymous with "iPhone." I would not be surprised to see Google start to hold back a little on the iPhone development in order to bolster the desirability of the Android platform. They've been giving Redmond the finger practically since the beginning*. Plus, with King Steve talking trash about Android, I wouldn't be surprised if they put a hold on some of their development as a little bit of petty revenge. It's not like there's another turn by turn package that's even close to free for the iPhone.

    *Yes, I own a WM phone and, yes, I'm a little disappointed that several features in the GoogleApps world have not been ported to the WM system (the ability to see multiple calendars - even if only by using tags - is at the forefront; I couldn't care less about turn by turn).

    • by tcr (39109)

      It's not like there's another turn by turn package that's even close to free for the iPhone.
       
      I've just started playing with Google Maps Nagivation on the Nexus (am in UK). I think it has more going for it than the $0 pricetag...
      It looks a different class of satnav when you see the satellite layer over your 3D route, and the ability to check out any of your waypoints in 360 degree compass mode is pretty nifty.

    • Too bad that you don't care about turn-by-turn navigation, since Windows Mobile was the primary platform for this kind of software for almost a decade and still has got the widest selection of navigation software.

      • Actually, I do. Just not on my phone anymore. I used iNav for 3 years on my WM phone, but last winter installed an in-dash 7" nav head unit. It's one of the few things that kept me from iPhone land. Second was PocketInformant - my must have calendar - which is now out for the iPhone. Third was great outlook connectivity - which I dumped when I moved my company to google apps. Fourth is tethering, which I still need. Get AT&T off the dime on tethering (and I don't use more than a couple hundred MB in a

  • I suspect... (Score:4, Informative)

    by msauve (701917) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:37AM (#31966172)
    that it is Apple which has caused this change in direction.

    Google's Android apps are written predominantly in Java. Apple recently made an edict that all iPhone apps must be developed in some form of C (or Javascript, but that's not Java).

    So, Google would now be required to completely rewrite the app. No wonder they're "decommitting."
  • by LordKronos (470910) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:10AM (#31966272) Homepage

    If you are going to claim that Google said it would be on the iPhone, then you might want to actually include a quote and link for an article that says that. The one included says they are WORKING on bringing it to the iPhone. Come on, lots of people have been working on bringing lots of things to lots of platforms, but they don't always work out. I don't call that backpedaling.

    I swear, this is why some companies feel they have to remain so secretive about everything...because you announce the POSSIBILITY of something and then they act like you promised and crucify you when it doesn't happen or doesn't have all the features they thought it should.

    • Moreover they may have been working on it but stopped development at some point for a legitimate reason.

      This legitimate reason may have been a technical one... or it may have been the realization that since they cannot control whether or not it will actually be accepted onto the iPhone platform, it's an unacceptable risk to put development effort into it. For instance, they put effort into a Google Voice application for the iPhone, only to have that effort wasted. Given this, it seems not at all unreason
  • These kinds of apps aren't really "Fire up XCode and code couple of lines" things. People also have tendency to rely on the data they get without reading the EULA and you end up being blamed as result. The programmers of these apps must be getting huge money and they must be working a lot...

    So, spend millions of dollars just to get some intern reject your application? Only Adobe would do such mistake. If they get some sort of guarantee from Apple, that would make developers of other 99.995 apps mad so it is

  • There is no text anywhere quiting Google spokespeople saying Google would bring this to the iPhone ???

    I think people are getting way ahead of them selves here thinking Google has some obligation to do this or else "be considered Evil".

    Think about it this way: You have a store and when people with kids come and buy stuff from you, you give the kid a baloon. Do you think you would have any obligation to do the same thing for your competitors ?

    • by jo_ham (604554)

      It depends which side is "evil" this week. Last week it was Apple - where Apple is "evil" for not accepting Mark Fiore's cartoon app. They are somehow obliged to sell his cartoons via their store or they're censoring him (somehow).

      This week it's Google, who are (somehow) obliged to offer their turn-by-turn on all platforms, and are breaking their "do no evil" promise by not guaranteeing it on the iPhone.

      It's hard to keep track of who to hate each week!

      • It's hard to keep track of who to hate each week!

        I hate them all as a matter of principle. But for most things, I find Google more useful.

  • I wouldn't bee too suprised if googles iphone support plans were based on automatic translation from their android apps. With apples recent change SDK/app store terms this might no longer be feasible making iphone support a costlier and slower project.

    I don't think google will want to drop iphone support given it's installed base, but it might very well become a second class platform for google meanng delays in support of new features.

  • Backpedals? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pj81381 (1703646)
    "Clarifies" is probably more correct. The prior article [macuser.co.uk] that indicates confirmation of navigation for the iPhone has no quoted text which actually confirms plans to bring navigation to other phones. And the above quote doesn't even read as "we won't bring navigation to the iPhone", but rather "we did not confirm we will bring navigation to the iPhone". I believe this is also in line with prior statements they've made on Google Maps Navigation, so it's not like they're really changing anything.
  • This is a good thing. Apple has recently been bullying their competition, the suit against HTC. Remember Apple was sued over patent infringement on the Iphone. They settled out of court. They aren't even offering that possibility in their suit against HTC.

    The suit against HTC is a semi-passive attack at Google. With the way Apple is behaving, I don't think google should put any of their products on the Iphone. Keep them on Android and continue to grow android as a very open platform. It's why I di
  • Turn by turn nav works beautifully on my Nokia 5230, for a hell of a lot less money! $10 data plan anyone?

  • Google has been going out of its way to help Apple and make it a more viable platform. Even though they already had their own phone under development, they supported iPhone. Even though Apple laptops and desktops are commercially insignificant, Google supports a lot of software on them. And the thanks from Apple? Insults, lawsuits, rejected apps, and attempts to monopolize the smartphone market through dirty tricks like restrictive developer agreements.

    Why should Google even bother develop anything for

    • by jo_ham (604554)

      "commercially insignificant"? I'm sorry, what?

      Like them or loathe them, I don't think you can classify the Mac platform as "commercially insignificant". I assume you mean "anything not on Windows doesn't matter", which is especially strange since Google's core business is totally platform independent, so classing one operating system as commercially insignificant is just ignoring a non-trivial percentage of your customer base for no reason at all. OS X has approximately 5% of the OS market, which is a small

      • by pydev (1683904)

        Like them or loathe them, I don't think you can classify the Mac platform as "commercially insignificant".

        To Google it is. All they ever need from Mac or iPhone users is that they view text ads in browsers. All their apps for iPhone are free anyway, and Apple has effectively shut down everybody else from the mobile ad market on iPhone.

        And tell me, on what are you basing the "good chance" of turning down the turn-by-turn app from Google?

        Because Apple has turned down applications from Google in the past.

        The

  • Realistically, that quote "However, Google is working with Apple on bringing it to the iPhone" is just what it says. They were working with Apple to bring it to iPhone. It didn't say it would be coming to iPhone, just that it was being worked on. Obviously, Apple's spoiled-child behavior as of late has made Google question whether it wants to support a platform as closed and anti-competitive as the iPhone is, where Apple has already contractually excluded Adobe in every way they can and, based on Apple's

    • by jo_ham (604554)

      The google maps app on the iPhone is by Apple. It is part of the default installed set of apps that comes with the iPhone. Google did not write it.

  • Wait a minute, maybe google was misunderstood by the media. As I understand it, about the only people will talk with reporters, are other reporters, a lot of news is second, or third, hand. I am willing to give google the benefit of doubt, you know: innocent until proved guilty.

Nothing will dispel enthusiasm like a small admission fee. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...