I always understood it as avoiding a complete dependency on Google, since (some form of) Maps is a must-have feature for any modern smartphone. After the Schmidt/Android thing I think the Apple leadership basically assumed Google would screw them over sooner or later if they could.
So many folks (myself included) rely on our phones for GPS & navigation, and having the UX for that be monopolized by one player is leaving a huge use case for your phone in the hands of your biggest competitor.
I think Apple has the opportunity to make a very unique & compelling experience, with their deep integration with the OS that they don't offer to outside developers. Though we'll see if they can actually execute.
It’s already a common user behavior to type your query right into the address bar, and that’s where this is in Safari. Spotlight is just the (confusing imo) branding
Wait, isn't Spotlight the name for Apple's local search (and maybe it's now used for whatever kind of unified search iOS likes to do?), whereas Safari's feature of treating things entered into the address bar that don't look like URLs as search queries is just a common redirection feature (analogous to the Firefox Awesomebar/Omnibar/whatever it's called now) that has nothing in particular to do with Spotlight?
Search in general is _hard._ But vertical specific searches & use cases can be tackled by different apps.
I would argue that my pushing for more prolific relationships with developers, you sort of chip away at this competitive threat with more specific, vertical-oriented searching experiences.
Example: I'm searching for restaurants nearby, I _could_ open Google, or I could leverage the Yelp/OpenTables of the app store.
Same thing for travel - flights, hotels, etc. all have apps that could, in theory, better serve the user than the catch-all "Google Search" app.
Maps is a slightly different beast; it's almost as ubiquitous as the "Phone" app itself .
There are other big search engines beyond Google. And currently Google pays Apple quite a bit of money to stay the main search engine on Safari.
But I would be very suprised, if Apple had not a team working on search algorithms, so they could start a search engine of their own, if the need is there.
Apple wouldn't do search to go head on with Google. Apple's search would be very specific to the domains that it cares about businesses for Maps, music, movies, etc.
Siri search works well enough within the domains that it does directly -- restaurants (integrated with Yelp), locations, movies, movies, tv shows, sports, etc.
> After the Schmidt/Android thing I think the Apple leadership basically assumed Google would screw them over sooner or later if they could.
That's a level of moralizing that isn't really appropriate for analyzing decisions like this. It's equally true, and for essentially the same reasons, that Android as a whole exists because the Google leadership basically assumed Apple would screw them over sooner or later if they could.
Businesses compete, basically. It's a good thing and the efficiencies that result make us all wealthier. It's only "screwing someone over" in the myopic eyes of the internet fan boi.
> t's equally true, and for essentially the same reasons, that Android as a whole exists because the Google leadership basically assumed Apple would screw them over sooner or later if they could.
> Apple leadership basically assumed Google would screw them over sooner or later if they could.
This should be the default assumption for any relationship - doubly so when corporations or big $$ is involved. That's why we have legal paperwork even for inter-family agreements - your Mom & Pop may love you now but in 20y when dementia sets it, that may be out the window (or Mom dies, Pop remarries and Step-Mom hates your guts, etc etc).
