Google Doubts Apple Will Approve Its New Maps Application 347
redletterdave writes "Even though Apple's App Store has also been friendly enough to offer alternative mapping applications to ameliorate customers upset with Apple's new default Maps app, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company may not be so friendly as to approve a Maps app submission from Google, which used to be responsible for the Maps experience in iOS until the iPhone 5. On Monday, sources at Google familiar with its mapping plans said the chances of Apple approving a dedicated Google Maps app on iOS 6 are 'not optimistic.' Specifically, they pointed to the lack of any mapping app in the 'Find maps for your iPhone' section of the App Store — accessible only via iPhones or iPads — that use the Google Maps APIs to call wirelessly for location, routing or point-of-interest (POI) data."
There are other Google based App Store apps (Score:4, Informative)
The thought that Google will not be accepted just because Apple is not featuring any Google based mapping apps is rediculous. There are a number of Google based mapping apps in the app store, from a Street View app to something called Sparkling Maps [leimobile.com] which is meant to be something of a Google maps clone.
Apple does not feature every app on the App store; there are too many. But that does not mean anything in terms of what they will approve, and the myth that Apple will not allow publishing anything that "duplicates functionality" is long dead at this point.
This whole story is nothing more than Apple Hater bait, and I can see by the first few replies the trolls are hungrily feasting upon it.
Re:complain (Score:5, Informative)
Err wrong. Google was more than happy to provide navigation. All they wanted was a little more credit for it and Apple wasn't going to have any of that.
Re:I liked Apple... (Score:4, Informative)
" They put their own selfish agenda above their customers"
well no shit, they have done nothing but that since the 1980's, what did you expect?
Re:complain (Score:5, Informative)
Google's withholding turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version in order to give their Android platform a competitive advantage.
Since you are obviously intimately familiar with the negotiations, perhaps you could correct my misapprehension. I had heard that Apple didn't want iOS users to have Latitude access or Google branding [businessinsider.com] . Sort of like they do on all other versions of Google map I have ever seen. That would kind of suggest it was more about locking in Apple customers to Apple's own map app and friend finder service than about Google refusing to provide features.
Re:complain (Score:5, Informative)
Save your breath. Why would Apple give Google any face on this? The #1 reason they dumped Google Maps was because Apple didn't want to pay Google's for turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version.
Fixed that for you.
Apple wanted access to Google's data for free. Google didn't want that, so Google asked for money and barring that asked wanted other concessions such as branding or the inclusion of more google services (such as Latitude) but Apple steadfastly refused.
As much as they tried to paint Google as the bad guy, it was Apple who refused to negotiate.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-no-longer-has-google-based-maps-on-the-iphone-2012-9 [businessinsider.com]
Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in.
Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.
As much as All Things D tried to spin it, they couldn't get around the fact that Apple refused to give the concessions Google wanted and Google had every right to ask for those concessions as they spent the money developing the service.
Re:complain (Score:5, Informative)
Really? I have seen any evidence of that. Do you have a link? (I'm not doubting you, just genuinely surprised.)
So you've been ignoring this: www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-no-longer-has-google-based-maps-on-the-iphone-2012-9 [businessinsider.com]
Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in. Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.
In the end, Apple walked away from the table, the Google offer remained but Apple didn't want to agree to it.
As much as Apple fan sites tried to spin it, Apple chose not to have Google's turn by turn navigation.
Re:I liked Apple... (Score:2, Informative)
Or is it considered common practice now before updating to go over a checklist of every feature of every app you use, to make sure it hasn't disappeared?
Yes. Yes it is.
Have you seen what Sony has done to the PS3?
Re:welcome to Nazi computing (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of slashdot people seem to leave their brains at the door when it comes to Apple. Just really irrational hatred going on.
Touche. s/hated/fanboism/
Google was already dumbing down their Map app on the iPhone before Apple got into the mapping business. They wanted to charge for "turn by turn" -- which makes business sense for Google. However -- it's a big feature for people with smart phones, so Apple had to do something.
Google was dumbing down? Just be happy that Google even allowed Apple to use any of their Maps data, let alone Navigation data. Google got nothing in return for the data. No ads, no ad revenue, no fresh data, nothing, zilch. And then Apple wanted turn-by-turn navigation. Google wanted more prominent display of their name, and inclusion of Google Latitude. Apple refused. Google then offered it for a fee. Apple refused and went crying to their fanbois.
Just from a business standpoint, why would Apple let someone do the "Microsoft thing" to them again? MS had a sub-par Office app experience on the Mac and Apple had to beg for that.
Apple probably will approve the Google App -- but only after they've established their own a bit more. Having users become dependent on an app that is a strategic trojan horse for the competitor is never a smart move. They've spent billions acquiring and developing their own mapping solution and it's REALLY UNLIKELY they'll even break even on that investment.
It is not good business to degrade your main cash cow by showing down an inferior experience on your users, either. But what do I know, I am just an irrational slashdotter.
If any competitor makes the major app and features on your platform -- you become vulnerable.
I think a lot of these comments about Apple -- on so many topics, ignore normal business practices. It's as if they invented Lawsuits, using Chinese manufacturing plants, and defensive policies towards major competitors. Grow up Slashdot, and stop talking like the ignoramuses you like to make fun of.
Actually, they pretty much did invent it. Grow up fanbois.
Re:There are other Google based App Store apps (Score:5, Informative)
...and the myth that Apple will not allow publishing anything that "duplicates functionality" is long dead at this point.
A myth? Are you kidding me? The last time Apple removed existing applications, because it "duplicated" (new) iPhone functionality, was just last week. And I'm talking about removing existing applications, not just banning new applications. Granted, those apps were for adding emoji icons, it's probably no big loss to anyone, but it at least proves that this clause in their developer EULA hasn't gone away.
Besides, no one is saying that Apple "will not allow publishing anything that 'duplicates functionality'". That's a straw man argument. From the very beginning, Apple hasn't been consistent in enforcing its rules anyway. For instance, it allowed some apps that duplicated functionality, while it rejected other applications that duplicated that same functionality.
The thing is. You don't really know. And Apple won't tell you of course. So you have to invest all this money and manpower in building your app for the iPhone platform and take the risk that the person reviewing your app is in a good mood that day, and/or that Apple won't go back on its decision six months from now (when they feel their mapping application has finally passed QA).
Re:complain (Score:4, Informative)
Ignoring? I asked a reasonable question. Why would you imply I read that but somehow chose to ignore it?
Slashdot Rule #5: Anything which can be attributed to malice will be.
Re:complain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:complain (Score:5, Informative)
So basically Google wanted to ... add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is. I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.
Actually, Google's map apps have had this "tracking" for years, and they've been very open about it. We've discussed the fact here before. This tracking is the basis of the Google traffic reports. The folks at Google have explained from the start that this feature gets its traffic info primarily from the cell phones running Google map apps, which uses the GPS data not only to show you where you are on the map, but to report to their traffic-control database where your phone is and how fast it's moving. This info is summarized, and sent to the other phones' mapping software to color the roads green, yellow or red. (And you can turn off this "tracking" by exiting the Maps program. ;-)
One of their frustrations right at the start was that, although the Google Maps app was on the iPhones, for several years Apple blocked this "tracking", so iPhones were in effect leeching off the Google (Android) traffic info without contributing to it. Eventually Apple relented, and allowed the iPhone population to add to the traffic info, significantly improving the coverage and accuracy of the data.
This is a nice example of a "social good". The best traffic reporting system would obviously collect data from all moving GPS gadgets and make it available to all such gadgets. If individual vendors create "walled gardens" and only allow their gadgetry to communicate with their traffic system, then we get a flock of partial-coverage, low-quality traffic reports.
Apple has once again chosen to take this route, by splitting off from the (currently) best such system. If they had our interests at heart, they'd instead be pushing for a common traffic-reporting database shared and supported by all the vendors. Google's approach here could be described as pushing for such a shared, public database, though their holding part of the API private is an example of them trying to limit the capabilities of competitors.
Thus, Google isn't acting entirely in the public interest here. But they're a lot closer to it than Apple, who are clearly pushing for the "walled garden" approach, to the detriment of everyone except their shareholders. In contrast, Google does make their map API available to the public, no matter which gadget you're using.
If the "public" had any sense, we'd be demanding that these companies pool their traffic-reporting resources into a single publicly-accessible system. But the public (at least here in the US ;-) clearly has no sense at all in this matter.
Re:complain (Score:2, Informative)
> (monopoly is legally defined as more than 50% market share in a particular market).
Since when, and where? All I can find is things in this spirit:
> In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21)
> Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
> It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/236681_chapter2.htm