Google Backpedals On Turn-By-Turn GPS For iPhone 145
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.'"
Why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
The new ad API is specifically for developers to use in their applications.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Google probably just didn't want to use C, C++, or Obj-C. :P
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"google are fighting back"
Against what for fracks sake?!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is suing Googles allies, and is a rival to the Android platform.
^ that
Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Informative)
"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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about developer lock-in, not user lock-in.
The theory is that if Flash was a first-class citizen on iPhone and Android and other smartphone platforms, a developer could just write to it. By banning Flash, a developer must write two or three versions of the app, which makes them more likely to just concentrate on an iPhone version.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that get old? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Could you understand the evil part? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Free makes people think it is "free" for company (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the GMM nav voice does sound pretty sexy. Even bordering on pornographic, I might say.
Re:Doesn't that get old? Nicknames stick (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to put a question mark at the end of that, it's hard enough to get tone from text, but incorrectly placing critical punctuation destroys the joke.
"Did you know B.G. bought evil from Satan." = wtf? Have this guy's brains been sucked out and replaced with a humorless robot's?
Whereas:
"Did you know B.G. bought evil from Satan?" = hehe, that's kinda funny.
Best:
"Fun fact: Satan now licenses evil from Bill Gates."
Though, to be honest, it's hard to call the guy who created the largest transparently [wikipedia.org]
Google should be evil (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Google should be evil (Score:5, Interesting)
That's already a feature [bbc.co.uk] on some devices.
Re: (Score:2)
What thought process does it take to follow a sat nav when it instructs you to go off road down a rocky path?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Simple (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Apple's been begging for treatment like this (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
Re:Apple's been begging for treatment like this (Score:4, Interesting)
And if your entire business folds on a single set of apps on a single platform, you reap what you sow.
If you are making money on software, you make a commercial decision based on the potential return. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Apple's decision to limit the language you can use (I think it is a little silly to be honest), but you have to work with the landscape in front of you.
MS did it with DirectX - an interface that was exclusive to Windows. If you wanted your game to work well on Windows, you used DirectX, and of course you did because of the installed base of Windows users. (and ignoring the graphics side of it, since there is obviously OpenGL, but there's more to it than just graphics - it handles controller input and so on, and it's a no brainer to use on Windows - your game will have better performance if you do use it). So now if you want a multiplatform game, you need to run two codebases.
The iPhone is a similar beast. Like it or loathe it, it has a large share of the market (large enough that writing apps for it as a mobile apps developer is a no brainer), so you work with the restrictions because the rewards are so high.
The GP was asserting that any company that devoted resources to developing for this highly lucrative market was "reckless" and should be a good indication for their stock price (I guess he assumes all companies are traded on the stock market) should go down because of it.
I am not advocating single platform development, merely the ludicrous assertion that developing apps for the iPhone was somehow a crazy business decision. Clearly the mobile market is booming right now, which is excellent - with a decent choice of competing operating systems in the iPhone OS, Android and WM. Anyone wanting to seriously make money in that area should definitely be looking at all avenues, even if it does mean your code is not quite as simple as you like - it's only natural that the competing smartphone interests will attempt to differentiate themselves. It may be a crappy move on Apple's parts, but they hold the keys to a lucrative pot of gold.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 100 million iDevices, the only reckless behavior for a mobile developer would be not developing for them.
If your business is writing games that violate the developers agreement, than yes you should not develop for the iPhone exclusively, or even bother at all.
If you are a new developer in the mobile space and want to focus on one platform and you do not make porn apps and are not trying to interfere with core functionality, the only reasonable choice is the iphone/ipod touch/ipad...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. It looks like you were arguing with "there is no approval for apps". But what they said is "there is no PRE-approval for apps", that is, getting approval before submitting the app. I don't see anything in your links or in your rebuttal about pre-approval, despite the quote you're responding to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a final point, there is no pre-approval for apps. I don't know where you heard that but you were mislead.
Is Apple a good enough source for you?
Um, you're misreading what DJRumpy wrote. He's not saying that Apple doesn't approve apps, he's saying they don't pre-approve apps. In other words, they don't tell developers, ahead of time, "sure, write that app, you are pre-approved and we absolutely will not block it". Each and every third-party app is submitted and reviewed, after it's developed, not before.
Good job on getting "+5 Informative" while being 100% wrong. Slashdot should have an Achievement for that!
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'd quite a turn-by-turn guide... (Score:3, Insightful)
... that would help me parse the article summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Google previously said one thing. Nevertheless, they backpedaled and said something different. Was it that hard?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First provide one for your subject line.
Why not sooner... (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Is Nokia behind this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
EU won't allow such games (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
His post is right if by later he meant just 3 days ago, and by the rest of the world he meant just the UK [neowin.net].
Houston, we have a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Houston, we have a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Companies involved (Score:2)
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
The iPhone is the popular blonde in the room (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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."
Re:I suspect... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I suspect... (Score:5, Informative)
Android has always been a predominantly Java platform and that's been known since day one.
True.
iPhone has never, ever, supported Java in any form (since Javascript is not Java as you point out) and that's also been known since day one.
True.
Nothing has changed besides a growing animosity between the companies.
False. Apple just decreed that any app written for the iPhone must be written in C, Objective-C or C++. Google has tools that translate Java into JavaScript that runs correctly on any platform. Translating Java to Objective C or C++ isn't a stretch. Apple's *new* policy disallows Google from doing that.
How anyone who isn't an Apple employee can defend that policy eludes me.
When did Google say it would be on iPhone (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Google sized companies can't gamble (Score:2)
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
RTFA ? (Score:2)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Working with Apple on Will Bring (Score:2)
They said they were 'working with Apple on bringing it to the iPhone' which isn't a promise that it would come to the iPhone. They were working on it with Apple at the time. But I'd wager that Apple's increasingly closed, anti-competitive moves (Adobe) made Google think that they'd make similar ones against them (Google's AdMob vs iAd) and decided better than to support a competitor. I doubt we'll see many of Apple's new mobile apps showing up on the iPhone going forward. They'll be on the Android as a
Re: (Score:2)
SDK terms issue (Score:2)
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)
More power to ya Google.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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
No problem (Score:2)
Turn by turn nav works beautifully on my Nokia 5230, for a hell of a lot less money! $10 data plan anyone?
you say that as if it's a bad thing (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Good For Google, Keep It Up (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Evil? Backpeddled? WTF? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
apple would probably deny it anyway.
Why? Apple approves plenty of turn-by-turn nav apps. They actually would have denied them before iPhone OS 3. The terms for iPhone OS 2 disallowed turn-by-turn apps. But now, Google should be fine with this one.