or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple - Page 6

post #201 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

I drove from Toronto to Buffalo today using Google and TomTom, and returned using Apple Maps and TomTom. Note that I had TomTom on an non-data plan iPad.

Had to turn off data entering the US and within a couple of mile, I lost the Google Map without data, as well as the Apple Map until I reentered Canada and turned data back on.

The TomTom's turn by turn on the other hand continued working perfectly without the data. More importantly, neither Google's or Apple's came anywhere near the simplicity of my TomTom. It too warns me when I am exceeding the speed limit. And with the go-to-picture feature, it is extremely easy to find a student or colleague just by having him/her email a picture of where they are on campus.


The more important question is did you use Homer Simpson or Dark Vader for the voice for turn by turn on the Tom Tom? I know what you mean though, like the Tom Tom (which Apple's data is largely based on) Navigon stores maps off line which is highly useful. You can also do cool things like email people directions which will open up in the app if they have it.
post #202 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

One common thing I see on Apple sites is people bashing Google for anonymously tracking user behaviors and using that data so advertisers can target people that might actually want their products. ...

 

Many people unfortunately do not have the time to research this stuff themselves, and instead rely on headlines or hearsay... usually heavily biased and paranoid.

 

Quote:
What I rarely see is anyone mentioning Apples behavior in this regard.  Apple tracks far more information about its users than Google can ever hope to find out about its users.  Since every app on an iPhone is in their ecosystem Apple knows EVERYTHING you do.  What websites you've visited, what you've bought using your phone, who you call and when, where you've been, where you bank, etc etc etc. 

 

No, I don't think Apple tracks our browsing or phone calls or location all day.

 

However, yes, especially because of iTunes, Apple knows or can guess or can obtain a large amount of info about us.  Credit, age, sex.  What iOS devices we buy.  What kinds of apps we purchase and use the most.  Our media purchases and preferences.  Of course, our location at the time of ad request.  

 

Apple tells advertisers that they can provide targeted iAd audiences based on at least the following (image from Apple):

 

700

 

Quote:

Apple tracks all this and essentially leaves a permanent cookie on the phone so advertisers can track anonymous information about Apple users. 

 

It's called the IFA (Identifier For Advertisers), a random number assigned to your device.  It's new in iOS 6.  (Prior to that, iAds used the UDID - the device id, which was a very insecure method, as it made it pretty easy for advertisers and others to get together and figure out who you were.  Bad Apple! )

 

Quote:

All of my friends that use an iPhone 5 have been somewhat incredulous and surprised by this and even more so when I tell them to go to their privacy screens to disable it...

 

Yes, iOS 6 added a Settings option to turn off targeted ads (*).  However, this doesn't actually get rid of the IFA, or stop Apple or others from tracking your interests, like many people think.  It simply sets a flag telling an advertising developer that they shouldn't use it to track you for targeted ads.  If they're honest, they don't.  Yet even if they obey the rules, they have figured out different ways of tracking us.  There is, for example, a MAC address database that's being built up for this purpose, which is effectively the same as a UDID. They also have their own flags from their own apps.

 

The upshot is, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Google or Apple, they're gathering info about us to sell anonymous ad space.  This is to pay for the services or app we're using.  (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... TANSTAAFL for you Niven fans.)  

 

(*) For iOS < 6, see this help article:  http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228

post #203 of 255
I think that both are in no way substitute for a pure navigation device. there are many arguments (rely on online data, decent coverage only in some countries, etc). It is also difficult to keep it updated world wide. For instance Nokia app satellite view is not updated since 5years for my town, Google was not able to give directions in South Korea where I work but Apple did and so on. Probably each area/country is better served by an application or other.
Nevertheless I've found the "scandal" with Apple maps a little bit exaggerated and all media provided full coverage for some misspelled or wrong located places. On the other hand no media site seems to be aware about the big number of complains against the new iTunes 11 that is far more important for Apple ecosystem than Maps.

I think also that is no big difference between Apple Maps and Google Maps and in short time the differences will became smaller. The thing that make the difference is that many people imagine Google as being the white angel giving everything for free and Apple the evil asking for the big money. If they will use some of their neurons to imagine how it makes Google boys billionaires and how dirty (even if legal) tax practices affect their communities and how they contribute daily to Google associate wealth the way that things are judged will changed also.
post #204 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Much interesting new detail and viewpoiint. Can you indicate a source for the $2.5 figure? And are you rejecting the standard story that Google wanted too much data from Apple users before they would add TbT and street view to Apple's iOS Maps app, thus forcing Apple to develop their own? Or was it a case of a more general program on Apple's part to cut ties with Google?

Unfortunately, I cannot give a source for the $2.5B figure :-)

 

Regarding the reasons why Google Maps never got updated on the iPhone, people say a lot of things - like Apple built the app, and Apple was lazy to update it, Google wanted lot of data about users which Apple did not want to give, etc. Denying Turn by turn from the iPhone has nothing to do with collecting info from users. The moment the user enters the Source and Destination, Google obviously has all the information they need from the users. When the app refreshes pages, Google obviously has as much real time location information as it wants. It is impossible to provide a server based mapping solution without getting access to all this information. That was just some misinformation that Google never bothered to deny.

 

Android is costing Google tremendous amounts of money (whether or not you consider the bottomless pit that is Motorola!). It is costing Google a lot in terms of credibility and goodwill with Regulators, Industry standards associations, etc. It is obviously costing a lot in negative PR. But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible. In 2007, when Apple asked Google to pay $100M to be the default search provider, it really opened Google's eyes to the risk that an unchallenged and massively popular platform like the iPhone could cause. By virtue of controlling this platform, Apple could force Google to pay increasing amounts of money to continue to be the default search provider. And this would hurt Google at its most sensitive spot - at the end of the day, over 90% of Google's revenues comes from advertising tied to search, and Apple could force Google to part with most of its search revenues from the iPhone.

 

As long as iOS is significant and has a better profile of users, Apple would be able to turn the screws into Google and charge whatever they want for keeping Google as the default search engine. Android absolutely needs to get something close to the kind of domination Windows had, for Google to feel safe. If iOS manages to stay at 30% of the smartphone+tablet market, and retains the higher value customers, that is way too important a chunk of the market for Google to be threatened with.

 

At this point, the natural question would arise, so what if Google is not the default search provider on iOS? What would Google lose? This is about the entire survival of Google. Back in 2004, Google's search algorithm gave it a massive advantage. And they had a choice, whether to patent the algorithm or not. The trouble with patenting it, was that the entire technical details of the algorithm would have to be disclosed. Google did not want to do this, and therefore decided not to patent, and instead kept the algorithm as a trade secret. The trouble with a secret, is that there is absolutely no legal protection against a secret being revealed, or being copied, or whatever. Over the last 6-8 years, competitors have managed to reverse engineer pretty much the entire secret. And they have been helped by the fact that Google itself has been forced to make a lot of changes to the algorithm, to detect cases where people were gaming the algorithm to get better positioning in the search results. The combination of these two things have meant that Google today does not have any edge whatsoever in terms of its algorithm.

 

The only edge Google has, stems from two sources - the fact that Google has already made massive investments in servers, storage, bandwidth - and any competitor has to make at least close to this level of investment to even stand a chance of competing with Google. This will not deter the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. The second advantage stems from the fact that Google sees over 75% of all searches - just the sheer volume of these searches allow Google to improve its results. It is this advantage that could be weakened if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.

 

This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.

post #205 of 255
While of course there is no such things black and white w.r.t. Google and apple, over the years I really am growing more and more repellent of google. Just like FB they are collecting as much data as possible while making it hard or impossible to control what kind if info is gathered and what is done with it. They lost all sympathy from my end. Only positive aspect is competition causing the need to continuously improve on all sides.

Regarding the maps app I really like apple first attempt and I'm pretty sure it will improve significantly over time.

On the other hand it appears that any hiccup on Apple's side leads to some insipid "-gate"-attempt while others' flaws are merely mentioned in a side note at best.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #206 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Apple tracks far more information about its users than Google can ever hope to find out about its users.  Since every app on an iPhone is in their ecosystem Apple knows EVERYTHING you do.  What websites you've visited, what you've bought using your phone, who you call and when, where you've been, where you bank, etc etc etc.   Apple tracks all this and essentially leaves a permanent cookie on the phone so advertisers can track anonymous information about Apple users. 


Please provide a source for validation. This is new to me and I don't buy it.

As opposed to google being fined for circumventing privacy settings on safari, collecting wifi data, and their public statements.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #207 of 255
"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

Enough said. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Reply
post #208 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Unfortunately, I cannot give a source for the $2.5B figure :-)

Regarding the reasons why Google Maps never got updated on the iPhone, people say a lot of things - Apple built the app, and Apple was lazy to update it, Google wanted lot of data about users which Apple did not want to give, etc. Denying Turn by turn from the iPhone has nothing to do with collecting info from users. The moment the user enters the Source and Destination, Google obviously has all the information they need from the users. When the app refreshes pages, Google obviously has as much real time location information as it wants. It is impossible to provide a server based mapping solution without getting access to all this information. That was just some misinformation that Google never bothered to deny.

Android is costing Google tremendous amounts of money (whether or not you consider the bottomless pit that is Motorola!). It is costing Google a lot in terms of credibility and goodwill with Regulators, Industry standards associations, etc. It is obviously costing a lot in negative PR. But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible. In 2007, when Apple asked Google to pay $100M to be the default search provider, it really opened Google's eyes to the risk that an unchallenged and massively popular platform like the iPhone could cause. By virtue of controlling this platform, Apple could force Google to pay increasing amounts of money to continue to be the default search provider. And this would hurt Google at its most sensitive spot - at the end of the day, over 90% of Google's revenues comes from advertising tied to search, and Apple could force Google to part with most of its search revenues from the iPhone.

As long as iOS is significant and has a better profile of users, Apple would be able to turn the screws into Google and charge whatever they want for keeping Google as the default search engine. Android absolutely needs to get something close to the kind of domination Windows had, for Google to feel safe. If iOS manages to stay at 30% of the smartphone+tablet market, and retains the higher value customers, that is way too important a chunk of the market for Google to be threatened with.

At this point, the natural question would arise, so what if Google is not the default search provider on iOS? What would Google lose? This is about the entire survival of Google. Back in 2004, Google's search algorithm gave it a massive advantage. And they had a choice, whether to patent the algorithm or not. The trouble with patenting it, was that the entire technical details of the algorithm would have to be disclosed. Google did not want to do this, and therefore decided not to patent, and instead kept the algorithm as a trade secret. The trouble with a secret, is that there is absolutely no legal protection against a secret being revealed, or being copied, or whatever. Over the last 6-8 years, competitors have managed to reverse engineer pretty much the entire secret. And they have been helped by the fact that Google itself has been forced to make a lot of changes to the algorithm, to detect cases where people were gaming the algorithm to get better positioning in the search results. The combination of these two things have meant that Google today does not have any edge whatsoever in terms of its algorithm.

The only edge Google has, stems from two sources - the fact that Google has already made massive investments in servers, storage, bandwidth - and any competitor has to make at least close to this level of investment to even stand a chance of competing with Google. This will not deter the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. The second advantage stems from the fact that Google sees over 75% of all searches - just the sheer volume of these searches allow Google to improve its results. It is this advantage that could be weakened if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.

This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.

Okay, everybody ought to read this.

As to your inability to cite a source, I can see why.

A grim scenario, from the point of view of realpolitik, but I'm betting that Tim Cook has not so much interest in Jobs-style TN warfare over Android. I hope. A world without Google would be less interesting. Without IOS, a barren wasteland.

Edit: I hope it's clear that this account has the ring of truth to it, as far as I'm concerned. Which is why no source can be cited—inside info.
Edited by Flaneur - 12/16/12 at 8:03am
post #209 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

You keep saying it makes sense without actually explaining it. Why shouldn't Apple accept Google-branded software? It's not even like there wasn't already Google-branded software in the app store back when Jobs was alive... You really have to justify your belief, because currently it is completely unfound; claiming that it "makes sense" without demonstrating how is irrational.
I'm not talking about the AppStore. I'm talking about a native app that comes with the phone. The original maps app and original youtube app had no Google branding. Fast forward 5 years with Google being one of Apple's major competitors. It's nuts to think Apple would allow a stock app with Google's branding all over it. Of course that doesn't mean Apple would keep Google maps out of the AppStore. There's plenty of competing apps in the AppStore. I use Spotify all the time and have little to no need to buy music off iTunes anymore.
post #210 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible.

 

... if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.

 

This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.

I think the entire Android strategy originally had Microsoft in the cross-hairs, not Apple.

 

Google had spent years building it's reputation on desktop search, beating out some pretty entrenched competitors to get there including a very powerful Microsoft. There's absolutely no doubt Google began planning for search market changes years and years ago, not wanting to be caught unprepared and needing to dig their way up from the bottom again. Buying up Android fit into that planning and pre-dated any Apple partnership talks. (For some background see this link http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal). Apple too was after that mobile user and had no intention of having having the upcoming market surge go right into Microsoft's pocket like the desktop did, with Apple taking the crumbs. The partnership of Google and Apple was one of convenience and shared business interests. They needed each other to make sure Microsoft was as disadvantaged as possible, and neither had the expertise in both services and hardware to do so alone.

 

In my view Google had no original intent to make Apple a "competitor" and may still not. There was no goal of destroying iOS or creating an enemy. This was all about being the puppeteer rather than the puppet. In the desktop world MS was that puppeteer. Google simply wasn't willing to chance letting Apple make them dance on a string to see success in the fast-rising mobile space too. That's where the partnership soured, which was never a true partnership in the first place. Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. The only way the partnership was going to work was if Google was willing to serve as a major force at Apple's pleasure and under Apple's rules. Long-term that was never going to work out. But it was Apple that made it an almost immediate issue IMO, leaving no doubt that Google was to play by their rules, period. Google showed no aggression towards Apple nor issued any threats (unlike Apple), but at the same time were clear they were their own boss and not beholden to anyone. That wasn't a great match with Steve Jobs personality.

 

Fortunately for both of them Microsoft was too slow in formulating their own strategy (some might say they still don't have one), at least in part blindsided by how effectively Apple and Google had stormed the castle, one in hardware and the other software. Otherwise things could have looked a lot different than they do now. 

 

So in my opinion Google never saw Apple as an enemy. They had a vision of where they wanted to be, which in some ways overlapped with Apple's own plans and made working alongside Apple attractive for both parties. But unless Google had been willing to put Apple in control of their companies vision it was never going work out long-term. It was almost assured that at some point Google was going to be called an enemy rather than a friend in Mr. Jobs view...   and that's the only one that counted to Apple. Google's interests were unimportant. The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. It was never a partnership to Apple. Google was simply a service provider, and would eventually be kicked aside anyway if it was to Apple's benefit. 

 

Anyway, that's the way I see it. With that said,I generally agree that where we are now may match up fairly close to the story of the last 2-3 years you're offered Macarena. That's not how it started out tho. Apple was never the enemy. It was Microsoft that concerned them both. It's just that Google and Apple have different views on how MS could impact their business and how best to blunt those concerns, which in Apple's world makes Google simply another enemy to add to their list.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/16/12 at 7:07am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #211 of 255

In addition to Pogue and Siegler, the "third musketeer" has offered some comments on Google Maps for iOS:

 

_...this new iOS app seems to have all the features I’d want to use. The UI aesthetic is along the lines of Google’s other recent iOS apps (their just plain “Google” search app, and the newly redesigned Gmail app). This aesthetic is quite distinct from the standard iOS look, but it’s unique to Google’s iOS apps...

Google’s brand has always been very friendly, colorful, humane. Their iOS apps have that same feeling..."

"Mapping data aside, I consider Apple’s new Maps the better-designed app, but this new Google Maps is very good."

 

He also makes this observation:

 My “It all worked out” observation was in no way an attempt to argue that this was Apple’s plan all along. In fact, quite the opposite. What makes it remarkable is that it’s all worked out despite clearly not being Apple’s plan. Apple’s plan was for their own mapping service to be, if not as good as Google’s, at least good enough that it didn’t make us miss Google’s map data. I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.

http://daringfireball.net/2012/12/google_maps_iphone

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #212 of 255
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.

 

Well, yeah. When your products get slandered and libeled simply for being made by you, you're pretty mad.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #213 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

. . . Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. . . The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. . . Anyway, that's the way I see it. . .

Here are two statements of yours than seem to be particularly created out of a malevolent fantasy of how Apple motivates themselves. The last statement seems to confess you're making it up.

Jobs said something about five percent of the mobile phone market. How is that reconciled by you in your scenario of tech-world domination?

The whole idea of domination, hegemony in business, is alien to Jobs's philosophy. ("Our motives are pure. We just want to make great products for people."—Jobs to Mossburg and Swisher at All Things D)

You are slandering him and Apple with this "puppeteer" line of made-up crap.
post #214 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

... As someone who has built browser engines by yourself ...

 

So, let me get this straight, KDarling not only claims to have been a touch developer for decades, but that he's also built browser engines by himself? Either that's true in such a trivial sense as to be meaningless, or someone's bullshit meter just redlined.

 

Why is it that Google/Android supporters feel the need to come here and distort, misrepresent and otherwise do violence to the truth? Yes, some of them are surely trolls -- i.e., mentally disturbed individuals who derive pleasure from working people up -- who will just say anything to start an argument. Some of them are obviously shills -- i.e., paid PR representatives here to shape a message for their employers or clients -- who's job it is to manipulate the facts into a different picture of reality. But, some of them just seem to be misguided souls here on a religious mission to evangelize the heathens, and if lies will save our souls then they are apparently justified. Then again, some of them are just delusional fools who don't have a clue.

post #215 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Here are two statements of yours than seem to be particularly created out of a malevolent fantasy of how Apple motivates themselves. The last statement seems to confess you're making it up.
Jobs said something about five percent of the mobile phone market. How is that reconciled by you in your scenario of tech-world domination?
The whole idea of domination, hegemony in business, is alien to Jobs's philosophy. ("Our motives are pure. We just want to make great products for people."—Jobs to Mossburg and Swisher at All Things D)
You are slandering him and Apple with this "puppeteer" line of made-up crap.

 

Well, it's a well known line of defense for propagandists to accuse their enemies of their own most egregious sins.*

 

I think that's all that's going on here, because Google is clearly the company driven by the need to dominate, to control, to, "be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world." It's also interesting to note that such feelings of needing to dominate and control are most often driven by feelings of insecurity and inferiority. None of these descriptors apply to Apple or Steve Jobs. But they fit Microsoft (and Bill Gates) and Google (and Eric Schmidt) to a T.

 

* Edit: There's a twofold reason for employing this technique. First, especially if you are the first to make the accusation, you can claim that any accusation that you did the same as you accused your enemy of doing is just retaliatory and thus not true. Secondly, even if you are both guilty (or more importantly, perceived to be), it means that everyone is doing it, so they are no better than you.

 

This is why we see all this nonsense about, "Apple is tracking you too," and other accusations where it is attempted to equate Apple's behavior with Google's and thus make Google's behavior not seem out of the norm. 


Edited by anonymouse - 12/16/12 at 8:27am
post #216 of 255
Re anonymouse, the shill quotient (SQ) seems pretty high in this thread.
post #217 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Here are two statements of yours than seem to be particularly created out of a malevolent fantasy of how Apple motivates themselves. The last statement seems to confess you're making it up.
Jobs said something about five percent of the mobile phone market. How is that reconciled by you in your scenario of tech-world domination?
The whole idea of domination, hegemony in business, is alien to Jobs's philosophy. ("Our motives are pure. We just want to make great products for people."—Jobs to Mossburg and Swisher at All Things D)
You are slandering him and Apple with this "puppeteer" line of made-up crap.

Didn't Jobs also say he wasn't going to let the same thing happen to their mobile market as happened with Microsoft and the desktop? 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #218 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Here are two statements of yours than seem to be particularly created out of a malevolent fantasy of how Apple motivates themselves. The last statement seems to confess you're making it up.

So when you and I post our opinions (as you did) we should really call it "making it up"? Just want to make sure we both use the same terminology so it doesn't get confusing for you.

 

Unlike some here I try to clearly state what is opinion (IMO/IMHO) and what is fact.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #219 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Didn't Jobs also say he wasn't going to let the same thing happen to their mobile market as happened with Microsoft and the desktop? 

 

You mean having their work stolen by another company, yes he did say that. Oh, but you were trying to imply he meant something else, weren't you? 

post #220 of 255
Perhaps it is a location issue. Maybe Apple Maps is better in the US than the UK?

One thing I can tell you is the Maps app in the UK is pathetic. One of the most frustrating and useless things I can remember Apple making.

I personally dislike Google. But oh am I so glad to get their Maps back on the iPhone. In London Apple Maps was and still is horrific. Major central train stations missing from the database is just one issue.
post #221 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So when you and I post our opinions (as you did) we should really call it "making it up"? Just want to make sure we both use the same terminology so it doesn't get confusing for you.

 

Unlike some here I try to clearly state what is opinion (IMO/IMHO) and what is fact.

 

Unfortunately for you, GG, the truth is biased. So, when you refer to differing "opinions", often that means that one side is stating the truth, and the other isn't. In this instance, you definitely aren't on the side stating the truth. 

post #222 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So when you and I post our opinions (as you did) we should really call it "making it up"? Just want to make sure we both use the same terminology so it doesn't get confusing for you.

Unlike some here I try to clearly state what is opinion (IMO/IMHO) and what is fact.

But we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about history. Things that have happened, what people have said and done, what it means then and now. We're not supposed to be distorting that. In fact we have a responsibility to see, among ourselves in this wretched little corner of tech news and discussion, that the real story prevails.

So far, since I've been paying attention here, the distorters of the story are just barely losing. On other sites they seem to be winning.

Edit: I see I was anticipated by anonymouse again, above.
post #223 of 255

Flaneur , we're not supposed to be posting opinions?? Really?  I must have missed your facts that proved I was distorting history, or anything at all for that matter. Since you didn't offer any, why bother posting anything at all then?

 

I'll wait for you to post 'em.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #224 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Flaneur , we're not supposed to be posting opinions?? Really?  I must have missed your facts that proved I was distorting history, or anything at all for that matter. Since you didn't offer any, why bother posting anything at all then?

 

I'll wait for you to post 'em.

 

I guess we missed your facts proving that history happened in the novel way you described it, or perhaps a better phrase would be, insinuated it happened. GG, you haven't made a substantive post on this site that didn't misrepresent or distort the facts. You've been called out on it with numerous facts to support the argurment that your version of reality is fiction. You've posted links as "supporting evidence" that were shown to have either nothing to do with the topic or not to support your argument. The idea that you can just come here and spew an endless stream of bullshit and that to show you are lying through your teeth we have to spend hours tracking down citations to "prove" you are lying is ridiculous at this point. Given your complete lack of any indication other than lip service that you care at all about facts or truth, I think it's time we said enough is enough and call you what you are.

post #225 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Flaneur , we're not supposed to be posting opinions?? Really?  I must have missed your facts that proved I was distorting history, or anything at all for that matter. Since you didn't offer any, why bother posting anything at all then?

I'll wait for you to post 'em.

Opinions are for product reviews, not sorting out why Apple did this or Google did that.

Jobs's statements, which are facts, do not support your version of history, that Apple was out to totally dominate the mobile space.
post #226 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post
Jobs's statements, which are facts, do not support your version of history, that Apple was out to totally dominate the mobile space.

Which ones? You're surely not clipping the lone quote from his biographer as your only evidence that Apple didn't and still doesn't care about grabbing as much of the mobile market as possible. So show me what you got.

 

So far I've not seen anything from you or anyone that would make my opinion of what occurred and why an unlikely scenario. Here's your chance. Not just posting your opinion that I'm wrong or distorting things. Not vague accusations about being misleading or "making stuff up", yet without a single example of where I've done so. Bring on the proof since that's all that matters to you.

 

EDIT: While you're at it, why would you think Apple wanting to take as much of the mobile market as possible is something bad, and thus my opinion of that being an Apple goal must be an insult. That makes no sense at all from a business standpoint.

 

According to the same Steve Jobs biographer you mentioned earlier, Mr. Jobs was infuriated when Android's market share exceeded Apple's, with Google being "promiscuous" in distributing Android to any company willing to agree with Google's terms.  Does that sound like someone who would be happy with just 5% of smartphone sales because all that was really important was "just making great products"?

 

BTW, the supposed Jobs comment was that Apple would be happy with just 1% of the market, tho I've not seen that quote for myself. I have my doubts that's what he actually said.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/16/12 at 3:51pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #227 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Which ones? You're surely not clipping the lone quote from his biographer as proof Apple didn't care about grabbing as much of the mobile market as possible. So show me what you got.

 

Show us what you've got. You've got nothing, just an "opinion" based on your desire to portray Apple in a negative and Google in a positive light, and the tricks of the propagandist at your disposal. Just look at the quote you misrepresented above about what happened on the desktop where you are pretending it's about marketshare and not about theft. Your little game is played out here. You no longer have any value to your employer or clients.

post #228 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... So far I've not seen anything from you or anyone that would make my opinion of what occurred and why an unlikely scenario. Here's your chance. Not just posting your opinion that I'm wrong or distorting things. Not vague accusations about being misleading or "making stuff up", yet without a single example of where I've done so. Bring on the proof since that's all that matters to you.

 

Imagine if we all played GG's game here. just throw out a bunch of scabrous accusations, claim it's your opinion (but totally true) and insist that your claims stand (even though, out of the other side of your mouth you are hiding behind the "opinion" card) till someone definitively proves it false. Well, ok, it gets played all the time here, but GG is definitely the most thorough player. How many times has he been definitively shown to be lying (I've lost count) yet he still acts as though we have to give hime the benefit of the doubt.

post #229 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Much interesting new detail and viewpoiint. Can you indicate a source for the $2.5 figure?

A citation earlier this year put the revenue that Apple got from Google searches last year at just over $1B.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-google-pays-apple-for-search-on-the-iphone-2012-3

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #230 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane View Post


Please provide a source for validation. This is new to me and I don't buy it.
As opposed to google being fined for circumventing privacy settings on safari, collecting wifi data, and their public statements.

 

Assuming you have an iOS 6 iPhone, go to your privacy settings where you would expect to find this.

 

You won't find it..  I must have made it up...

 

Okay, now go to the informational screens.  I don't have an iPhone so cant find it without one in my hand but instead of being in 'Privacy Settings' where you would expect it, it is buried two or three layers deep.

Something like:   About->General->Info

 

In that screen you will find something that says something along the lines of:

 

Limited IDFA tracking ->   Off

 

Just to put it where it is was pretty sneaky on Apples part, the way they phrase it is almost worse.

It is a somewhat misleading double negative.

 

By default FULL IDFA is enabled (IDFA is your ID For Advertisers) so by turning limited IDFA -> ON you are actually turning FULL IDFA off even though when you first look at it it looks like Apple has you 'protected' by turning tracking -> off

 

KDarling has an interesting post above and something I didn't know.  It's  actually a little sinister.  Turning the feature on (which is really off) still gives advertisers access to your unique ID, it just states that your preference is that they don't use it.  Nice one.

 

To clarify:  I don't think it is that big a deal.  I don't think either Apple nor Google is doing anything malicious with it or 'spying' on you.  They simply have access to that information and *could* go evil on you if they chose too.  Google states their practice is to delete info after a certain time perioed (18 months?).  Apple doesn't state they have any policy one way or the other.

post #231 of 255

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

KDarling has an interesting post above and something I didn't know.  It's  actually a little sinister.  Turning the feature on (which is really off) still gives advertisers access to your unique ID, it just states that your preference is that they don't use it.  Nice one.

 

To be exact, Apple's Advertising Identifier API gives the following instructions to developers about the advertisingTrackingEnabled flag that the Settings feature changes:
 

"Check the value of this [flag] before performing any advertising tracking. If the value is NO, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging."

 

Quote:

To clarify:  I don't think it is that big a deal.  I don't think either Apple nor Google is doing anything malicious with it or 'spying' on you.  They simply have access to that information and *could* go evil on you if they chose too.  Google states their practice is to delete info after a certain time perioed (18 months?).  Apple doesn't state they have any policy one way or the other.

 

It is in both Apple's and Google's interests to keep our info as safe and anonymous as possible.  It's how they make money off ad placement, after all.  In return, we get free apps and ads that target our interests.

 

The only real downside... and it might be a big one for some people... is that they both will give the government access to that info if formally requested.  Of course, the same goes for cell phone records from a phone company.  Or financial records from a bank.  Or airlines.  And so forth.

post #232 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


True. But to be fair, there are also those who defend Apple when there is no reason or need. Some are fanatical about Google. Others (a larger population) are fanatical about Apple. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

 

The truth is not usually somewhere in between. The truth is not fair and balanced.

post #233 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

The only real downside... and it might be a big one for some people... is that they both will give the government access to that info if formally requested.  Of course, the same goes for cell phone records from a phone company.  Or financial records from a bank.  Or airlines.  And so forth.

In Google's case they investigate each request individually, and often refuse to comply with government requests for user information. We have no idea how many requests to turn over their user's private information are fielded by Apple or Microsoft nor how often they comply in full or part as neither appears willing to acknowledge it, much less discuss it. Google on the other hand wants us to take notice of the intrusion, publicly publishing statistics about government requests.

 

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #234 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

To be exact, Apple's Advertising Identifier API gives the following instructions to developers about the advertisingTrackingEnabled flag that the Settings feature changes:
 

"Check the value of this [flag] before performing any advertising tracking. If the value is NO, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging."

 

 

It is in both Apple's and Google's interests to keep our info as safe and anonymous as possible.  It's how they make money off ad placement, after all.  In return, we get free apps and ads that target our interests.

There's been almost no mention of it by Apple (for obvious reasons IMO), with one of the more insightful articles being posted by BusinessInsider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-in-ios-6-2012-10

 

As the article points out it's better than what Apple used to allow up until a few months ago (tracking by UDID) and I've no issue with the new method myself.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/16/12 at 5:12pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #235 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think the entire Android strategy originally had Microsoft in the cross-hairs, not Apple.

 

In my view Google had no original intent to make Apple a "competitor" and may still not. There was no goal of destroying iOS or creating an enemy. This was all about being the puppeteer rather than the puppet. In the desktop world MS was that puppeteer. Google simply wasn't willing to chance letting Apple make them dance on a string to see success in the fast-rising mobile space too. That's where the partnership soured, which was never a true partnership in the first place. Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. The only way the partnership was going to work was if Google was willing to serve as a major force at Apple's pleasure and under Apple's rules.

 

So in my opinion Google never saw Apple as an enemy. They had a vision of where they wanted to be, which in some ways overlapped with Apple's own plans and made working alongside Apple attractive for both parties. But unless Google had been willing to put Apple in control of their companies vision it was never going work out long-term. It was almost assured that at some point Google was going to be called an enemy rather than a friend in Mr. Jobs view...   and that's the only one that counted to Apple. Google's interests were unimportant. The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. It was never a partnership to Apple. Google was simply a service provider, and would eventually be kicked aside anyway if it was to Apple's benefit. 

 

Anyway, that's the way I see it. With that said,I generally agree that where we are now may match up fairly close to the story of the last 2-3 years you're offered Macarena. That's not how it started out tho. Apple was never the enemy.

The only part of what you are saying that I agree with, is the part about Android not originally targeting Apple.

 

Android originally targeted not Microsoft, but Blackberry. The only player that was worth targeting back then, in the mobile space, was Blackberry.

 

The very origin of the word Google (based on a play on Googol), and the motto "Don't be Evil", is a very clear indication of Google's ultimate ambition. Normal companies don't go around proclaiming that they will not be evil. No one even thinks of "not being evil". Right from its beginning, Google has had an extremely clear idea of its destiny, and has worked on making that vision a reality by every means possible. Right at the beginning, the founders might have realized that Google would be incredibly powerful, and must not misuse that power - hence the Don't be Evil. Over the years, this focus on Don't be Evil has been diluted significantly, and Google has make several major decisions that can easily be classified as Evil (to name a few, Google's u-turn on net neutrality in partnership with Verizon, their support of the "one bullet to kill" strategy of Motorola, Blatant misuse of their monopoly powers to disadvantage competition, etc). They have shown scant respect for literally anything that comes in the way of achieving that destiny. It is absolutely mind boggling how many times this company has been caught pushing the envelope of other people's rights, or music, or other digital inventory. In comparison to Google, Microsoft's transgressions come out looking "not so bad"!!

 

Apple has never set out for world domination, or total control of everyone's information, or things like that. Apple's philosophy is quite simple - the best user experience comes about when there is a tight integration between hardware and software. Customers benefit when there is a reliable and easy to use ecosystem that they can use, without worrying about how to make things work. To keep this ecosystem safe, certain restrictions need to be in place - especially against the types of misuse companies like Google indulge in shamelessly. None of Apple's restrictions are specifically targeted against Google - they are just guidelines they have incorporated to create the best possible environment for the user. Even when you look at pricing, the intelligent consumer knows that the iPhone is a lot cheaper than the Android devices - even though the upfront cost of the device is higher, you get updates for 2-3 years, because of which your phone does not get outdated for a long time. And for the same reason, Apple's phones retain their resale value a lot better than Android devices. The build quality is so good, that the phones last way longer than Android devices - after 3 years, my old 3GS still works beautifully - just that the battery barely manages to last one day of use!

 

Google on the other hand has operated extremely dangerously. Does any sane person believe Google's defense that they collected WiFi data unintentionally? Or unintentionally bypassed privacy/security settings in Safari? These are just the things Google has been caught doing - who knows what else Google is doing that never sees the light of the day? Are we only going to wake up and understand Google when it is too late? All of Google's actions have been planned with a single motive - of controlling all the ways people access information, finding out everything possible about people's digital lives. There is nothing altruistic about anything Google does. Their DNS solution allows them to see what sites you visit, even if you never search on Google to visit that site. Their auto complete in search lets them see everything you are searching for, even if you changed your mind and never completed that search. At the scale at which Google is doing it, they can probably tell you more about yourself than you yourself can!

 

You say Google does not consider Apple as an enemy - considering Google's actions in connection with Apple, as well as the way Google has operated in other contexts, I don't think Google looks at anyone as friends or enemies - they are all means to achieve Google's objectives or hindrances in achieving Google's objectives. The classic case is the turn around with Verizon - when an enemy was converted into a friend! 

 

The 1984 commercial was looked upon as an Apple vs IBM commercial. But a reprisal of that ad targeting Google would probably be even more relevant today than it was in 1984. Google is pretty much the closest thing we have to Big Brother - much more so than IBM ever was. And Google's business plans are also very dangerous - Seemingly free, but in reality much more expensive than you realize. Imagine a situation where someone wants to sign up for Google Apps - it is no longer free, and it costs $5 per user per month. Once you pay $5 per user per month can you be assured that Google will not snoop around your data and will not use your data to profile you to target ads from other Google services? Considering Google's track record, can we even trust Google, even if they explicitly declare that they will not snoop your data?

 

It is not that Google's vision overlapped with Apple's vision. Google's ambition and goals are so big that pretty much any other ecosystem would be a threat to Google. Contrary to what you are saying, Jobs always positioned Apple as "if you can't afford it, its not for you". Apple and Jobs have never indicated any interest in becoming big dog. Even today, if Apple wanted to do that, there are several initiatives they can start, to become a lot bigger in market share. They need not focus on 38% margins. They can release products at multiple price points and not leave any room for the competition. If anything, Jobs and Apple probably realized that they would attract a lot of unwanted anti-trust attention if they had too much market share, and have focused on making more money from a smaller portion of the market.

 

Your comments are so disingenuous, it is hard to think that you actually believe what you write - it is almost like you are writing everything you can, just to paint Google in a better light than it is, and to paint Apple in a worse light. Some of your statements are too blatantly ridiculous, to justify any other opinion!

post #236 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A citation earlier this year put the revenue that Apple got from Google searches last year at just over $1B.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-google-pays-apple-for-search-on-the-iphone-2012-3

 

This Macquarie analyst has it completely wrong. This is not how Traffic Acquisition costs work at Google. It is not that Google pays Apple some percentage of the revenue that accrues because of Apple. Google's entire Traffic Acquisition costs consists of 2 components - One large annual payment to Apple, and another sizable annual payment to the Mozilla Foundation. And a few insignificant payments to a few other ecosystems. None of these payments are related to actual revenue figures.

 

I think a similar report next year will show a significantly higher TAC for Google - because of dramatically higher payment made to Apple. Ultimately, Google wants to control its TAC - that is the reason why Google has stopped supporting the Mozilla Foundation, and instead put its weight behind the Chrome Browser. Google does not have to pay anyone anything to keep Google as the default browser on Chrome.

 

If you look at Google's older reports, the TAC actually was quite insignificant till the iPhone came along. The iPhone was the first time Google had to pay for Traffic Acquisition - and that is when Google decided to take on Apple, and compete against the iPhone with Android.

 

And when people realize how much Google is paying Apple, you don't want to be owning Google shares! People keep wondering (including Eric Schmidt), why Apple is not suing Google directly over Android. The largest Android player just had to pay $1B for infringing Apple's IP. Why should Apple spend money on a lawsuit with Google, when they are getting back almost all the money Google makes from the iPhone? How much more can Apple get from a lawsuit against Google? But mark my words, the thermonuclear war will happen - what we have seen so far is nothing - and in fact, some of Apple's weapons for the thermonuclear war are already well known and public - just that no one thinks of these as weapons against Google.


Edited by macarena - 12/16/12 at 9:23pm
post #237 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I'm not talking about the AppStore. I'm talking about a native app that comes with the phone. The original maps app and original youtube app had no Google branding.

Yes, they did, in the corner. Some of the developer rules even used to forbid covering such branding.
post #238 of 255
Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post
Last time I checked, "at least" didn't mean "exactly". …you could have such terms confused.

 

You said this, did you not:-

 

Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

Nobody needs to; Apple deserves all the criticism since they effectively removed Google Maps from iOS to replace it with their own solution, meaning they are expected to perform at least as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.

 

By "everywhere" did you not mean including where Google Maps are wrong, or did you not really mean "everywhere", in which case you do not really think Apple Maps should be expected to perform as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.

 

Thus your whole argument fell apart.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #239 of 255

Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.

 

It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/17/12 at 3:30am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #240 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.

 

It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.

 

So, is this the new GG? Nothing he says is true, but neither can it be false, because everything is just an "opinion" now, an opinion apparently based on nothing whatsoever. Well, we know he's never really been much for facts, but now he appears to have jettisoned them altogether. 

 

Clearly his new strategy is to make totally over the top claims and then when he gets called on lying he just says, "I was expressing my opinion, but prove me wrong!"

 

Clever, right? It's an opinion, so it's not bound by evidence, but, "prove me wrong," assigns it the same weight as an evidenced based argument without the need for evidence, which he never has anyway.

 

And, by the way, everyone else's posts are just "opinions" too, so he doesn't need to address them, he can just merrily go on about his reality redefinition for Google.

 

Of course, if it's all just "opinions", why does he bother responding to people to tell them that their posts are not true, they are just "opinions". Oh, to discredit other ideas, without having to argue against them or support his own "opinions".

 

Typically, people pull out this "opinion" defense when they are on shaky ground and losing the argument. "Well, that's just your opinion, mine is just as valid." Thus, even though their argument held no water, they try to undermine confidence in the other argument by labeling it as "just an opinion".

 

Well, GG, your "opinions" in this thread consist of nothing but invention, misrepresentation and distortion. We don't have to prove them wrong, they are only your "opinions", and they are wrong anyway. And the other posts that you labeled opinions, it's not up to you to state whether another's post is opinion or fact, that's up to them.

 

Let's review for your client's sake, though:

 

* Google is a criminal enterprise, guilty of multiple crimes

* Google seeks to control access to all information on the Internet

* Google egregiously violates our privacy by tracking everything we do without our consent

* Google regularly shares information about us with the NSA

 

 

EDIT: The funniest thing about this "new" GG is that just the other day he was all about how he goes to great lengths to research "facts" for his posts, but, now, all of a sudden, now that he wants to post what he knows are utterly baseless inventions, he's all about "opinions", everything is just "opinions".


Edited by anonymouse - 12/17/12 at 5:35am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple