Questions Arise Over Google's Plans to Bring Free Turn-By-Turn GPS Navigation to iPhone

[macUser2007]

Except that there were already a number of browsers available for the iPhone.... they come up with inane rationalizations like yours.

Oh, but Apple is only happy to allow browsers which are clearly more primitive than Mobile Safari.

Except that Opera has Flash for other platforms. Except that we will not see Skyfire for the iPhone.

In short, as long as there is nothing innovative, and nothing which threatens Apple's monopoly, they'll approve any garbage.

Inane rationalizations, indeed.

...
Even though I believe Google is extremely dangerous and evil today (particularly with regard to their belief that it's OK to steal copyrighted intellectual property ...

LOL. You mean, like Steve Jobs stole from Xerox...?

 

[CupertinoBob]

What makes you think Apple couldn't do the same thing?
Oh no...we need a triple layer tinfoil hat for this one.

I don't get your point. What makes you think I don't think Apple could do the same thing. I never said or thought that. I gave Apple my credit card info voluntarily. Quite a different thing. It is my opinion that it MAY be that Apple is spying on us; it is very likely that Google is. For instance they have my Car license in their database, although they blur it in street view. Just one example I know of.

 

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

The thing about moving to ATT that should bother you the most is JOINING ATT. Worst network ever. Apple tying themselves to that piece of garbage company was one of many mistakes they keep making.

Hmmm Seems the partnership is working out just fine for both companies

 

[Mjmar]

Lol I bet apple wouldn't approve it anyway.

 

[bobob]

LOL. You mean, like Steve Jobs stole from Xerox...?

Incorrect.

"Apple negotiated a deal with Xerox; in return for a block of Apple stock, Xerox allowed Jobs and his team to tour PARC in December 1979, take notes, and implement some of the ideas and concepts being bounced around at PARC in their own creations."

 

[killerrobot]

I don't get your point. What makes you think I don't think Apple could do the same thing. I never said or thought that. I gave Apple my credit card info voluntarily. Quite a different thing. It is my opinion that it MAY be that Apple is spying on us; it is very likely that Google is. For instance they have my Car license in their database, although they blur it in street view. Just one example I know of.

Perhaps you need to read the first person's statement that I quoted. I'm saying thinking that only one corporation is guilty of data mining is absurd. Saying that Google is guilty of it while not acknowledging that Apple is too, is also absurd. Every corporation data mines. That's how their research allows them to make more money.
If you want privacy, don't use the internet, phones, cars, drivers licenses, electricity, basically any sort of technology.

 

[Reed Rothchild]

This news will end up being a classic example of why walled garden control over apps will ultimately fail. Assuming Apple deny Google the chance to give away their navigation software via the app store. If Apple do allow it, then great, but based on track record I doubt it...

 

[AlmostThere]

I don’t think the average person understands what Google actually does.

Then again, neither do any of the people criticizing Google here.

 

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

Smh

if you think Apple is collecting credit card numbers you're really ignorant...if that's the case what's keeping Walmart from collecting your CC # as well? parinoia runs rampant at this site

 

[Otaviano]

Except that Opera has Flash for other platforms.

Not on mobile phones

 

[killerrobot]

if you think Apple is collecting credit card numbers you're really ignorant...if that's the case what's keeping Walmart from collecting your CC # as well? parinoia runs rampant at this site

Yeah, except for those 125 million plus credit cards on file through iTunes/app store.

Ignorance is bliss. Paranoia, no so much.

 

[tigress666]

Except that there were already a number of browsers available for the iPhone. There was no need to approve opera just to prove that there were others.

Oh, but Apple is only happy to allow browsers which are clearly more primitive than Mobile Safari.

I dunno, I have PErfect Browser and it seems to have a lot more featues than Safari. Haven't really noticed any time that Safari was able to read a page it hasn't. I will admit I trust Safari's security better so I make sure to go to any site that I want to be secure (like my credit card) using Safari.

As for GPS, I just realized something when I went to check out the Waze application and was considering downloading it. When I realized why I haven't really tried too hard to find a turn by turn program.

I think turn by turn would not be something I"d use on the iphone unless the new one has much improved GPS. My 3G's GPS is so fickle sometimes I don't trust it would realize where I was to be able to give me turn by turn instructions. I do use it to see what the instructions are but I don't trust that it will reliabley know where I am to be able to tell me where the next turn is.

So until the iphone's GPS gets more reliable on figuring out where you are (it's pretty reliable for a multifunction machine, but still nowhere near enough a true GPS unit that it really replaces one) I am not sure how useful turn by turn would be (It would be somewhat useful but I could see trying to rely on it and then missing my turn as it tries to figure out where I am).

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

I'm not sure I'd say that.

Even though I believe Google is extremely dangerous and evil today (particularly with regard to their belief that it's OK to steal copyrighted intellectual property as long as the author hasn't specifically refused), I don't think they were always that way.

I suspect that they started out as a group of people who thought they could so something good - and probably really believed in 'Do No Evil'. It's only the years between then and now that have corrupted them and turned their logo into a lie.

God. When will you people stop with all of this.

Companies are not good or evil they are companies.

Business is business not personal.

This isn't ****ing Star Wars, its business. There is no good and evil in business.

 

[jragosta]

Yeah, except for those 125 million plus credit cards on file through iTunes/app store.

The difference, of course, is that if I buy something from iTunes, it asks for my credit card and gives me the chance to decide not to buy it - or for Apple to not save the card number.

Where is the check box that allows me to tell Google to stop saving information on me?

God. When will you people stop with all of this.

Companies are not good or evil they are companies.

Business is business not personal.

This isn't ****ing Star Wars, its business. There is no good and evil in business.

That is nonsense. Fortunately, most people realize that values DO matter.

For example, what if business found that it could make money by torturing dogs on video and selling the video on the Internet. Would that be OK?

Or perhaps kidnapping children and selling their organs? OK with you? It's just business.

Let's even assume that they found a way to do those things without breaking the law and that it was perfectly legal. Still OK with you?

Don't give me the crap that there's no such thing as good or evil in business actions. That is the kind of rationale that is almost always used to justify evil behavior.

 

[kdarling]

Except that there were already a number of browsers available for the iPhone. There was no need to approve opera just to prove that there were others.

There were no third party browsers for the iPhone until Opera.

All that was available was shells around the current Safari browser core.

 

[macUser2007]

Incorrect.

"Apple negotiated a deal with Xerox; in return for a block of Apple stock, Xerox allowed Jobs and his team to tour PARC in December 1979, take notes, and implement some of the ideas and concepts being bounced around at PARC in their own creations."

BS.

Here is an excerpt from the horse's mouth (Jef Raskin):

"Raskin: ... of course the Macintosh project was killed several times, and it was usually Jobs who was killing it, because he didn't understand it; I figured if he understood it, and could see something like it, before we were ready to show anything, that he would be more sympathetic. And I think that became true. He decided to take the Lisa project and try to do it there.

Now, the Lisa was very Star-like; the Lisa stole things from Star right and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names, exactly. I didn't like that, and I thought we could do better. Certainly the Macintosh benefited from Lisa development; later on, Lisa software came over to Macintosh, and Macintosh software went over to Lisa. And there was cross-pollination, which was fine. But the Lisa was very Star-like. And the Macintosh also inherited things which to this day I don't think are very good interface ideas. But that's what happens when you don't have someone who has their own ideas, and has to borrow a lot."

http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/interviews/raskin/parc.html

I'll repeat it, for the fanboys who have their heads too deep in Jobs' rear:

"the Lisa stole things from Star right and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names, exactly."
Jef Raskin

 

[bobob]

LOL. You mean, like Steve Jobs stole from Xerox...?

Incorrect.

"Apple negotiated a deal with Xerox; in return for a block of Apple stock, Xerox allowed Jobs and his team to tour PARC in December 1979, take notes, and implement some of the ideas and concepts being bounced around at PARC in their own creations."

BS.

Here is an excerpt from the horse's mouth (Jef Raskin):

"Raskin: ... of course the Macintosh project was killed several times, and it was usually Jobs who was killing it, because he didn't understand it; I figured if he understood it, and could see something like it, before we were ready to show anything, that he would be more sympathetic. And I think that became true. He decided to take the Lisa project and try to do it there.

Now, the Lisa was very Star-like; the Lisa stole things from Star right and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names, exactly. I didn't like that, and I thought we could do better. Certainly the Macintosh benefited from Lisa development; later on, Lisa software came over to Macintosh, and Macintosh software went over to Lisa. And there was cross-pollination, which was fine. But the Lisa was very Star-like. And the Macintosh also inherited things which to this day I don't think are very good interface ideas. But that's what happens when you don't have someone who has their own ideas, and has to borrow a lot."

http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/interviews/raskin/parc.html

I'll repeat it, for the fanboys who have their heads too deep in Jobs' rear:

"the Lisa stole things from Star right and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names, exactly."
Jef Raskin

Very emphatic use of bolding, but unfortunately it doesn't make you any less incorrect.

Jef Raskin can hardly be considered an unbiased commentator in this instance. His use of the word "stole" is outright wrong in the above quote, and he himself admits in your link that:

"There were other things going on that I didn't know about. The deal between Apple and Xerox over stock, I didn't know about any of that at the time. And I don't know if that was after the visit, or before it, or in conjunction with it, I have no first-hand knowledge."


(For those who wish to read more about the story behind the development of the graphical user interface, I suggest The Real History of the GUI or A History of the GUI as good starting points.)

 

[Goona]

LOL at all the people who think Google is their friend, they will screw you over as fast as they could when it comes to money. That's all these companies care about, money. They don't give two *****s about you, keep that in mind and you'll be fine.

 

[macUser2007]

Very emphatic use of bolding, but unfortunately it doesn't make you any less incorrect.

Jef Raskin can hardly be considered an unbiased commentator in this instance. His use of the word "stole" is outright wrong in the above quote, and he himself admits in your link that:
...

Apple apologists are as pathetic and full of BS as any religious apologist.

Why is Jef Raskin biased? Because he was the person who was pushing Apple toward using a GUI, or because he pushed Jobs into going to see Xerox's Star?

And why do you believe some crap from some random Apple apologist, instead of believing the person who was instrumental in pushing the Xerox visits, who worked on the project, and who was there?

I suppose next you'll site some blog that says Jobs walks on water...?

 

[inkswamp]

"the Lisa stole things from Star right and left-- it stole people, it stole ideas, even stole the font names, exactly."
Jef Raskin

That's clearly an opinion piece by Raskin who was known to have been somewhat cranky about these things and unhappy with more than a few things Apple did.

What's not a matter of opinion however is the following:

* Apple compensated Xerox for their GUI concept.
* Apple was given free access to Xerox's work.
* Apple was allowed to hire away PARC staff.
* Apple was allowed to incorporate these ideas into a commercial product.
* Apple added a great deal to Xerox's work (about half the elements of what we consider the modern desktop metaphor came from Apple extending PARC's work.)

Why is Jef Raskin biased? Because he was the person who was pushing Apple toward using a GUI, or because he pushed Jobs into going to see Xerox's Star?

Raskin was biased because he was very smart and very opinionated and he has some well-known differences with Steve Jobs over the direction Apple went with the GUI. That doesn't make Raskin a "bad guy" (far from it) but it does make his opinion on these matters a little less reliable. His writings are 100% accurate for his own opinion, but as a matter of history, I wouldn't let his view stand as the be-all end-all.

 

[entropys]

A lot of the vitriol in this thread shows a complete misunderstanding of the origin of the google maps app on the iphone, and the limitations of the google turn by turn app on android.

• the google maps app is NOT ON THE APP STORE. it is not a direct competitor to any app on the app store, as it is included by default on the iphone. Every iphone already has it, so it is not really an issue of competition from apple's perspective.
• Increasing the feature set of google maps at the most decreases the likelihood of people buying a turn by turn app from the app store. Apple would not care about that, as they generally do not make much money from the app store. The app store exists to sell iphones, where apple makes the real money. I do not believe competition between turn by turn apps is a problem for apple.
• the google maps app was not written by google in any case, but by apple. This is possibly one reason that the google rep suggested that getting turn by turn on the iphone was problematic, as it would have to be apple that updated the app to include it.
• google maps with turn by turn is not a replacement for commercial turn by turn apps. This is simply because it does not contain a complete set of maps on the phone, and thus requires a persistent internet connection to work.

It is clear from Apple's purchase of placebase (or whatever it was called) that it intends to update the google maps app. This 'debate' is a meaningless crock.

I assume that the reason the android google maps app requires a persistent internet connection is that it enables google to obtain better information on the user to assist their advertising revenue. There is no technical reason why they don't have an app that stores a complete set of maps and maybe eventually they will. But it will not become available until they work out how to maximise their advertising revenue from such an app by overcoming the issue where the user is out of range of the internet. I don't actually have a problem with this, as long as the users have their eyes wide open. A turn by turn app that relies on information gathering/advertising is not a solution I am a fan of, but it clearly doesn't bother other people.

 

[theBB]

This news will end up being a classic example of why walled garden control over apps will ultimately fail. Assuming Apple deny Google the chance to give away their navigation software via the app store. If Apple do allow it, then great, but based on track record I doubt it...

Which part of their track record makes you think so? The fact they have allowed at least ten different nav apps, some free, some paid, some subscription based, some with streaming maps, some full blown? Google wants to make Android more attractive with an additional feature, which is understandable, but all of a sudden that is Apple's fault? Yeah, I guess that is actually true. If iPhone platform was not as popular, Google would't see it as a threat and would release its app. Bad Apple, bad...

 

[theBB]

So until the iphone's GPS gets more reliable on figuring out where you are (it's pretty reliable for a multifunction machine, but still nowhere near enough a true GPS unit that it really replaces one) I am not sure how useful turn by turn would be (It would be somewhat useful but I could see trying to rely on it and then missing my turn as it tries to figure out where I am).

I don't know about iPhone 3G, but the nav apps on my iPhone 3GS work about as well as stand alone TomTom gadgets in terms of reception. Don't base your opinion on how the Maps app is behaving. That one is fairly rudimentary in how finely it can track your location.

 

[macUser2007]

...
* Apple compensated Xerox for their GUI concept.
* Apple was given free access to Xerox's work.
* Apple was allowed to hire away PARC staff.
* Apple was allowed to incorporate these ideas into a commercial product.
* Apple added a great deal to Xerox's work (about half the elements of what we consider the modern desktop metaphor came from Apple extending PARC's work.)

...

Nope. So many wrong assertions there....

Apple didn't exactly "compensate" Xerox. Apple was about to go public, and agreed to sell to Xerox 100,000 of its shares at $10 per share, and part of the deal was to allow Jobs to see what PARC was doing.

But Xerox never agreed that Apple was to be allowed to rip off its ideas, and hire away most of PARC's key employees and use the knowledge they had developed while working for Xerox.

You can certainly argue that Xerox's management was shortsighted at the time, or that Xerox should have sued in a timely manner (they did, but only years later, after Apple had already taken GUI copyrights and Xerox had to resort to weaker claims to try to have standing).

But you can't argue that Apple did not steal from Xerox.

And trying to discredit Raskin because he is "cranky," is something Apple apologists have to resort to, to perpetuate the myth of "Jobs the visionary."

 

[AidenShaw]

Another urban legend FAILs

Put the iPhone's data traffic on Verizon's network and see how well it holds up.

Mac fans keep saying this, when it doesn't really make sense when you consider how hard Verizon pushes 3G for laptops (which have an appetite for data far beyond a smartphone).

So I did a simple search. Bang! - fanboy legend smashed.

Verizon, Sprint Carried More 3G Traffic Than AT&T In '09

(that means that each, separately, were bigger than AT&T which was in third place -as)​

Verizon carries the most wireless data -- and will for another five years

04:31PM Monday Apr 12 2010 by Karl Bode

Last year AT&T made (the wrong kind of) headlines as the carrier's network struggled under the bandwidth demands of the iPhone, and it was consistently inferred that this bandwidth demand was breaking records right and left.

But according to a new study by ABI Research, both Sprint and Verizon actually carried more wireless data traffic in 2009 than AT&T.

Verizon (which the firm predicts will retain the top spot over the next five years due to broader coverage) and Sprint carried 63% of the US market's mobile network data traffic, though third place AT&T did have the most activated data devices in 2009:

Verizon will maintain the top data traffic position over the next five years. AT&T's share of mobile data traffic will increase and by 2012 AT&T will take the number two position. The final three spots for top mobile data traffic levels will be held by Sprint, T-Mobile and then all other operators. However, even though operator traffic distribution share will change, nearly all operators will see mobile data traffic levels increase eightfold from 2010 through 2014.

According to ABI, Verizon Wireless and Sprint each carried over 16 billion more megabytes of mobile network data than AT&T in 2009. Not too surprisingly, mobile laptop users bring with them greater bandwidth demand, and Verizon and Sprint both have more of these users than AT&T.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Sprint-Carried-More-3G-Traffic-Than-ATT-In-09-107852

Type "verizon att data traffic" into your favorite search engine to see this and many other stories reporting the same thing - Verizon's 3G network pumps more bytes than AT&T. Even Sprint is bigger than AT&T.

Then again, since Verizon's network evidently can't handle voice and data at the same time from the same device...

Something that in spite of having a Verizon 3G smartphone since early 2005, I didn't realize until I read it here on MacRumours. It may be an important factor for some, but not for others.