Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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."
  • Re:I suspect... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Henriok (6762) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @06:50AM (#31966210)
    Android has always been a predominantly Java platform and that's been known since day one. 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. Nothing has changed besides a growing animosity between the companies.
  • Re:Why not sooner... (Score:3, Informative)

    by jeti (105266) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @07:06AM (#31966260) Homepage

    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: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:I suspect... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jmichaelg (148257) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @10:28AM (#31967250) Journal

    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.

  • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @10:44AM (#31967362)

    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 duplicated functionality or violated guidlines in some way then they fain shock when it's rejected. The simple truth is that the App store has millions of customers which is a powerfully draw for a very easy distribution system. Most of the hundreds of thousands of apps are are approved without issue. We only hear about the rejected ones.

    As a final point, there is no pre-approval for apps. I don't know where you heard that but you were mislead.

  • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @11:40AM (#31967722)

    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?

    It took an FCC letter of inquiry to get this [cnn.com] little bit of information about Apple's App Store approval process. Every single app is reviewed by at least two staffers before it is allowed to go into the App Store. Google Voice is specifically mentioned, and that particular app has been "under review" by Apple for about six months now. Google resorted to a web app to allow iPhone users to access it.

    Joe Hewitt [techcrunch.com], author of the iPhone's most popular app of all time - the Facebook app - quit developement for the iPhone altogether last november specifically because of Apple's App Store approval process.

    Seriously, what planet have you been living on for the last couple years?

  • by node 3 (115640) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @02:23PM (#31968680)

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

    by ajs (35943) <ajs@a[ ]com ['js.' in gap]> 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:2, Informative)

    by tftp (111690) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @03:36PM (#31969202) Homepage

    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:Why would they? (Score:2, Informative)

    by babyrat (314371) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @04:49PM (#31969590)

    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:Why would they? (Score:3, Informative)

    by metamatic (202216) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @10:05PM (#31971176) Homepage Journal

    ...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.

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...