I'm trying to inform you. I don't think its necessary for you to be a dick in return just because you don't have an intelligent reply.
You said "If you look at Google's commercial contracts for Maps and Street View"
I would like to, as you said, lookat the commercial contracts. otherwise, you are stating something with no supporting evidence. So perhaps you should quit being a dick, and support a claim?
Daniel, this borders on a RoughlyDrafted Rant.... It provides interesting backstory and opinion, but not as much 'insider' information.
It's interesting, just not sure which Banner it should fly under.
Ditto. It's painful how quickly you can tell Dilger wrote the articles he's written here, and I don't mean that in a good way. A little too fanboy-ish, often with spotty logic, and almost always with at least two healthy digressions that are barely worth skimming over.
The only interesting tidbit here is that losing iPhone users could put a kink in Google's ability to provide live traffic data, but even that's not described well. It's like Change Bank; how are they really making cash?
I'd almost rather hear more about how Dilger's ripping off San Fran's city health care.
I think you'll find that all other commentators are actually saying that it is Apple that is waiting for Google and that Google has the upper hand here. Very poorly written and research ramble.
You said "If you look at Google's commercial contracts for Maps and Street View"
I would like to, as you said, lookat the commercial contracts. otherwise, you are stating something with no supporting evidence. So perhaps you should quit being a dick, and support a claim?
We are seeing essence of free market at work. Both groups are tremendously intelligent people. Google saw this coming and got going with Android. Apple understands the same truth with its IOS-Map. Both ecologies (Andriod IOS Map) are not perfect, but the race is ON. I like this.
Seeing googles contract with Apple has nother year running, what money have they stopped making?
Can you please provide the commerical contracts between Google and Apple so I can review the termination date as well as the terms for the licensing fee in order to verify that Apple is still required to pay Google despite the fact that they are not generating traffic on Google's servers.
I think you'll find that all other commentators are actually saying that it is Apple that is waiting for Google and that Google has the upper hand here.
Apple and Google aren't actors in a high school drama, they're companies out to earn money. Google just stopped making money on iOS maps, which represents the more valuable half of the world's mobile devices.
For this exact reason, Yahoo is my default search engine, and I use Siri whenever possible and as much as possible.
Yep! It took years, but we, as a household,are "Microsoft-free". We are working on becoming "Google-free".
You can choose, for the most part, to do business with/for those who you respect and trust...
Once again. In what way. the desire to charge for their features? or the apple created app that used google maps API's?
Are you just guessing, or can you provide supporting documents that state exactly what Google demanded in order for Apple to be allowed to add the desired features (like turn-by-turn) to their iOS Maps App (Google version)?
You said "If you look at Google's commercial contracts for Maps and Street View"
I would like to, as you said, lookat the commercial contracts. otherwise, you are stating something with no supporting evidence. So perhaps you should quit being a dick, and support a claim?
Or you could google it yourself.
"Google Maps API for Business is extremely cost-effective, starting at just $10,000 per year. Pricing is based on the number of map page views for externally facing websites. For internal uses, it is based on page views or number of vehicles being tracked."
You mean google treated iOS users like crap because of apples inbuilt app that used googles data? or the desire to charge for use of specific features?
You mean google treated apple users like crap because it told apple that turn by turn and mass transit and pedestrian traffic and traffic reroutes were android only and meant to differentiate the android app from the apple app therefore placing all apple users at the short end of the stick? I thought so. Google has always made it no secret why apple users got a crappy version of there data no matter who made the app they did it so they could say android had an advantage over iOS. I really like apples maps and it will only get better over time. Good riddance to Google. The carpet bagger company of all time.
Ditto. It's painful how quickly you can tell Dilger wrote the articles he's written here, and I don't mean that in a good way. A little too fanboy-ish, often with spotty logic, and almost always with at least two healthy digressions that are barely worth skimming over.
The only interesting tidbit here is that losing iPhone users could put a kink in Google's ability to provide live traffic data, but even that's not described well. It's like Change Bank; how are they really making cash?
I'd almost rather hear more about how Dilger's ripping off San Fran's city health care.
Wow that's a lot of unsubstantiated defamation to pack into your first comment on AI.
The only thing better that "spotty logic" is making wild claims you don't even bother to back up with the spottiest of logic.
I guess it's easier to be a pretentious dick than offer any valid criticism of another person's work. It's worked so well for the guy behind the other six accounts that constantly fume about every DED article without articulating any real grievances.
"Google Maps API for Business is extremely cost-effective, starting at just $10,000 per year. Pricing is based on the number of map page views for externally facing websites. For internal uses, it is based on page views or number of vehicles being tracked."
"It (Apple) wanted to show off an amazing Maps experience that raised the bar and would leave Google scrambling to port a good enough version of its own maps to compete with it."
Now that is the funniest BS line I have ever read. Unfortunately, that did not happen. They ended up with a Map app that is lacking in features. The majority of satellite data in Apple's map is low resolution, compared to Google which has had high resolution satellite images for years. There are even better turn-by-turn nav apps for the iPhone that are far superior to Apple's pathetic attempt. Waze Social GPS is free, and it uses real time traffic info by the 20 million users of the app. Apple can't do that. If people were begging for turn-by-turn nav, it has been available for years. You didn't have to wait for Apple to do it, and then botch it up. TomTom? Really Apple? That is the lowest rated GPS system on the market. Maybe they got it for cheap. No street view? How does that raise the bar? If anyone does a lot of field work for their job, street view is far more useful than Flyover. No one cares about the top of a building. Most people have GPS in their car, or a portable GPS in their car, that is far better than a phone. Apple's map is an embarrassment. Google won't lose any sleep over this because the complaints about the lack of features are valid.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
can you provide the commerical contracts between Google and Apple?
thnks
I'm trying to inform you. I don't think its necessary for you to be a dick in return just because you don't have an intelligent reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
I'm trying to inform you. I don't think its necessary for you to be a dick in return just because you don't have an intelligent reply.
You said "If you look at Google's commercial contracts for Maps and Street View"
I would like to, as you said, lookat the commercial contracts. otherwise, you are stating something with no supporting evidence. So perhaps you should quit being a dick, and support a claim?
My needs are met... I'm not worried.
It's obvious that Google considered iOS users to be second class citizens. For example, lack of turn by turn directions for iOS users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Daniel, this borders on a RoughlyDrafted Rant.... It provides interesting backstory and opinion, but not as much 'insider' information.
It's interesting, just not sure which Banner it should fly under.
Ditto. It's painful how quickly you can tell Dilger wrote the articles he's written here, and I don't mean that in a good way. A little too fanboy-ish, often with spotty logic, and almost always with at least two healthy digressions that are barely worth skimming over.
The only interesting tidbit here is that losing iPhone users could put a kink in Google's ability to provide live traffic data, but even that's not described well. It's like Change Bank; how are they really making cash?
I'd almost rather hear more about how Dilger's ripping off San Fran's city health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
You said "If you look at Google's commercial contracts for Maps and Street View"
I would like to, as you said, lookat the commercial contracts. otherwise, you are stating something with no supporting evidence. So perhaps you should quit being a dick, and support a claim?
"Boom." - Steve Jobs
http://www.padgadget.com/2012/06/23/google-cuts-mapping-api-prices-after-being-dropped-by-apple-and-other-developers/
http://googlegeodevelopers.blogspot.com/2012/06/lower-pricing-and-simplified-limits.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Seeing googles contract with Apple has nother year running, what money have they stopped making?
Can you please provide the commerical contracts between Google and Apple so I can review the termination date as well as the terms for the licensing fee in order to verify that Apple is still required to pay Google despite the fact that they are not generating traffic on Google's servers.
Thanks!
Originally Posted by ernysp76
I think you'll find that all other commentators are actually saying that it is Apple that is waiting for Google and that Google has the upper hand here.
Okay, why? And why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Apple and Google aren't actors in a high school drama, they're companies out to earn money. Google just stopped making money on iOS maps, which represents the more valuable half of the world's mobile devices.
For this exact reason, Yahoo is my default search engine, and I use Siri whenever possible and as much as possible.
Yep! It took years, but we, as a household,are "Microsoft-free". We are working on becoming "Google-free".
You can choose, for the most part, to do business with/for those who you respect and trust...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
Once again. In what way. the desire to charge for their features? or the apple created app that used google maps API's?
Are you just guessing, or can you provide supporting documents that state exactly what Google demanded in order for Apple to be allowed to add the desired features (like turn-by-turn) to their iOS Maps App (Google version)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
You said "If you look at Google's commercial contracts for Maps and Street View"
I would like to, as you said, lookat the commercial contracts. otherwise, you are stating something with no supporting evidence. So perhaps you should quit being a dick, and support a claim?
Or you could google it yourself.
"Google Maps API for Business is extremely cost-effective, starting at just $10,000 per year. Pricing is based on the number of map page views for externally facing websites. For internal uses, it is based on page views or number of vehicles being tracked."
http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html
It's not exactly a controversial idea that Google would charge companies based on the volume of transactions they make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
You mean google treated iOS users like crap because of apples inbuilt app that used googles data? or the desire to charge for use of specific features?
You mean google treated apple users like crap because it told apple that turn by turn and mass transit and pedestrian traffic and traffic reroutes were android only and meant to differentiate the android app from the apple app therefore placing all apple users at the short end of the stick? I thought so. Google has always made it no secret why apple users got a crappy version of there data no matter who made the app they did it so they could say android had an advantage over iOS. I really like apples maps and it will only get better over time. Good riddance to Google. The carpet bagger company of all time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
can you provide the commerical contracts between Google and Apple?
thnks
I'm trying to inform you. I don't think its necessary for you to be a dick in return just because you don't have an intelligent reply.
I just reported the above post:
Quote:
I really resent DED posting responses to his own articles under a pseudonym.
Then, he insults posters who do not agree with his pronouncements.
This is the very reason I no-longer follow his blog at Roughly Drafted.
AI readers deserve better than to be insulted by the author of an article just because they do not agree with him!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's obvious that Google considered iOS users to be second class citizens. For example, lack of turn by turn directions for iOS users.
A feature google wanted reimbursed for. That not treating htem as second class citizens. Thats apple not wanting to pay google for that feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rufwork
Ditto. It's painful how quickly you can tell Dilger wrote the articles he's written here, and I don't mean that in a good way. A little too fanboy-ish, often with spotty logic, and almost always with at least two healthy digressions that are barely worth skimming over.
The only interesting tidbit here is that losing iPhone users could put a kink in Google's ability to provide live traffic data, but even that's not described well. It's like Change Bank; how are they really making cash?
I'd almost rather hear more about how Dilger's ripping off San Fran's city health care.
Wow that's a lot of unsubstantiated defamation to pack into your first comment on AI.
The only thing better that "spotty logic" is making wild claims you don't even bother to back up with the spottiest of logic.
I guess it's easier to be a pretentious dick than offer any valid criticism of another person's work. It's worked so well for the guy behind the other six accounts that constantly fume about every DED article without articulating any real grievances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Or you could google it yourself.
"Google Maps API for Business is extremely cost-effective, starting at just $10,000 per year. Pricing is based on the number of map page views for externally facing websites. For internal uses, it is based on page views or number of vehicles being tracked."
http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/maps-faq.html
It's not exactly a controversial idea that Google would charge companies based on the volume of transactions they make.
A generic faq is not Googles contract with Apple
"It (Apple) wanted to show off an amazing Maps experience that raised the bar and would leave Google scrambling to port a good enough version of its own maps to compete with it."
Now that is the funniest BS line I have ever read. Unfortunately, that did not happen. They ended up with a Map app that is lacking in features. The majority of satellite data in Apple's map is low resolution, compared to Google which has had high resolution satellite images for years. There are even better turn-by-turn nav apps for the iPhone that are far superior to Apple's pathetic attempt. Waze Social GPS is free, and it uses real time traffic info by the 20 million users of the app. Apple can't do that. If people were begging for turn-by-turn nav, it has been available for years. You didn't have to wait for Apple to do it, and then botch it up. TomTom? Really Apple? That is the lowest rated GPS system on the market. Maybe they got it for cheap. No street view? How does that raise the bar? If anyone does a lot of field work for their job, street view is far more useful than Flyover. No one cares about the top of a building. Most people have GPS in their car, or a portable GPS in their car, that is far better than a phone. Apple's map is an embarrassment. Google won't lose any sleep over this because the complaints about the lack of features are valid.