Sorry - I meant the decision to put an App in the App Store. If the Apple Maps are bad as people seem to be proclaiming, Google should let iOS 6 brew up ill will with Apple's customer base, especially since Apple users tend to upgrade their OS's immediately, and use it to promote Android.
You could alternatively see this situation as Google signaling that they are willing to act in the best interests of the consumer even if it means sacrificing strategy, putting them in stark contrast with Apple in the eyes of the people who are critical of Apple's new mapping application (ie, the people who are going to be deciding to continue using Google's maps.)
I don't think that the typical consumer's understanding of technology industry dynamics is deep enough for this to be relevant. I think the decision is more like, "Steve's phone's maps suck, I don't want that phone."
After all, all of these companies have faced huge amounts of criticism (Apple for worker's conditions, Google for its actions in China, Facebook for privacy issues), and they don't seem to meaningfully erode consumer enthusiasm.
You're right. I think the thought process likely to go through most consumers heads is either:
"This new maps thing sucks. Oh look, I can get Google's maps again. Thanks Google!"
or
"This new maps sucks. Oh well, the rest of the phone is great."
Google passing up the chance to keep people who already like one of their products happy on the off chance that they can pry Apple consumers away from Apple doesn't strike me as the best decision in the world.
Do most users actively know that the tiles in the iOS 5 Maps application are served by Google? The app itself is Apple top to bottom -- the display does say "Google" in the lower-left-hand corner -- but it would be interesting to know how users think of their iPhone maps application.
Hm, maybe - but withholding maps from iOS could be considered evil and backfire into Google antipathy. Also I the impact might not be so great after all - fans will be fans...
> Google wants as many people to use its maps as possible.
If that were true, they would offer the service for free. As it stands, for normal contracts, only the first 25,000 requests per day are free[1]. If we assume Google wasn't willing to give Apple a special pricing deal, with 300M+ iOS devices in the wild, Apple could easily be left shelling out a fortune each day to user their data.
I am pretty sure using a maps app is more like visiting maps.google.de in a browser, that is, it would be free. The pricing link you gave is for embedding Google Maps into your product. If anything, I suspect Google paid Apple to keep maps on the iPhone, and now Apple's demands were getting too much.
Yes the consumer web offering is free (and includes Google ads) and is still available through the browser on iOS 6.
You are wrong about the revenue direction. Apple were a significant provider of revenue to Google for map usage. Below is just the article I picked but Googling for 'google maps ios revenue' brings up quite a number.
I suspect Apple were upset at the limitations believed to be imposed on them by the Google contract (no turn by turn) and it was expiring anyway. It was probably negotiated when they had no idea how sucessful the iPhone was going to be. Google probably also wanted more control to insert advertising and the fact the two firms are now competitors in mobile OS's and at legal loggerheads made agreement unlikely.
If what you say is true – which I have to disagree with: If you built a third-party Maps app that duplicates the functionality, you would most certainly be subject to API fees – there is the secondary issue of Apple allowing Maps (and Youtube, for that matter) to completely stagnate. The iOS 5 version of Maps was still a pretty poor experience for the timeframe, even if you feel it was better than the new version.
What incentive was there for Google to back Apple's poor implementations when they can just release their own versions that actually bring the features Google wants to offer their customers on their own schedule, as they are doing now?
Embedding a map with a search field in an HTML page is no different than maps.google.com either, but you will be subject to the API terms because those are the terms Google has decided upon. They could ask browser vendors to pay too, if they wanted to, but have chosen not to. They chose to charge those who implement software using their API. A Maps app like Apple's, which does far more than pointing to maps.google.com, needs to use the API service, which Google has decided to charge a fee for. Granted, Apple could have struck an independent deal with Google to use the service without said fee. That, we will never know.
But what reason would Apple have to go out of their way to maintain their own datasource (and pay other vendors, like TomTom, for help) if Google's data already fit the bill? Even more so if Apple was going to be paid to use it as you speculate. A dislike for Android isn't reason enough, especially as this move strengthens Androids position for the time being. The only logical explanation is that Google wasn't willing to play ball, for one reason or another.
> I suspect Google paid Apple to keep maps on the iPhone, and now Apple's demands were getting too much.
Good example of that weird "Google can do no wrong even though it's a company built on collecting information about users and selling it" nerd mentality. It's well known that Google was increasing it's map fees.
