[robenkleene]

I don't understand what people wanted Apple to do differently with Apple Maps?

Maps is core to the iPhone, given it's a device you use out and about. Google had them under their thumb, because they were dependent on their data, and were denying them features[0]. They couldn't wait until the data was better because that's not how it works, you need to collect data to improve data.

I don't see what they could have done differently? Even in hindsight this seems like the right call?

This whole situation sounds like people not liking to use a mediocre product, but just because the product is mediocre doesn't always mean it wasn't the right decision to release it, from both a company strategy perspective, and from a consumer benefit perspective (if you believe competition is healthy for consumers).

[0]: https://daringfireball.net/2012/09/get_the_fainting_chair

[matwood]

Exactly. There is no way Apple could wait until feature parity which still may not ever happen in some areas. There comes a point where they have to get what they have out the door and continue to iterate. One could argue Apple released too early, but it was going to be bumpy no matter when they released.

[Wowfunhappy]

> There is no way Apple could wait until feature parity

Why?

A startup would eventually need to start generating funds, or at least prove themselves in the market to convince investors. But Apple? They could have kept Maps in the oven for another five years if need be. Similar to how they secretly kept Intel builds of OS X in their back pocket for years.

[robenkleene]

The blog post I linked to above specifically addresses this (https://daringfireball.net/2012/09/get_the_fainting_chair). The specific consequences of delaying Apple Maps would have been either:

1. Not having turn-by-turn directions on Apple Maps, arguable the single most important feature for a mapping app.

2. Share more of Apple users data with Google in order to support Google Latitude. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Latitude)

So we have two choices: Not have the single most important feature in a mapping app, or violating one of the basic tentpole features the iOS brand, user privacy. So obviously they went with the third option, launch their own mapping service despite its flaws, and I've never heard a convincing argument that that wasn't the best choice.

[Wowfunhappy]

Oh, that's interesting—their deal with Google was about to expire!

Still—could Apple not strike deals with other vendors? It's not as though Google was the only game in town, especially back then when TomTom was a much bigger deal. At minimum, they could have used their leverage to negotiate with various players—Apple is good at that.

Nokia in particular had a fantastic mapping app, with turn-by-turn directions that worked really well on my N9. They still sell access to this API today: https://www.here.com/

I'm really not convinced that rushing an in-house app out the door was the only possible option.

[aloer]

Because Maps most likely needed user feedback and crowd sourced data collection to be improved. The longer the wait the bigger the gap to Google Maps that had been live for many years, happily collecting data about what streets are open, where the stores are, how the traffic works in a certain locations and so on

[Wowfunhappy]

Could Apple not collect data while users were using their iPhones normally (possible inside of the Apple-written, but Google-API-based maps app)?

Explicit user feedback is harder to gather, but I didn't realize Apple Maps leaned so heavily on that. I've certainly never submitted anything...

[matwood]

> Similar to how they secretly kept Intel builds of OS X in their back pocket for years.

I had a G4 PB and then an Intel MBP. The transition was better than expected, but certainly not without bumps. In a lot of ways, it was similar to maps in that to really finish they had to get it out the door.

[jldugger]

Honestly, I assume the Maps fiasco came down to pricing, and Google was surprised that Apple chose to walk rather than take Gruber's option #2. Frankly, so am I. Map data sufficient for turn-by-turn isn't cheap and Apple largely plans and devlops on a yearly cadence. It's essentially impossible to produce the data quality needed in the WWDC-driven-development timeframe.

> This whole situation sounds like people not liking to use a mediocre product, but just because the product is mediocre doesn't always mean it wasn't the right decision to release it, from both a company strategy perspective, and from a consumer benefit perspective

Strong disagree. A mediocre product damages the brand and a mediocre navigation service can kill people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_GPS. Releasing mediocre products when a better option is available reeks of putting the company ahead of the consumer, frankly, and it's no wonder people ditched Apple Maps at the earliest opportunity.

[robenkleene]

You're ignoring the meat of the #2 choice, Google wanted more user data, location data at that. In order for that to be a good deal, you'd have to think that Google Maps is more valuable than privacy as a tentpole feature of iOS. Which I think is clearly false, especially since Google Maps was obviously still going to have an app on iOS, and this time on Apple's terms.

[jldugger]

> privacy as a tentpole feature of iOS

At the time I was a Nokia Linux user, but as far as I can tell, privacy was not a selling point of iOS in 2012. The 'fundamental human right' phrasing is relatively new[1], and privacy isn't really mentioned at all before 2012[2]. It feels like this was a response to where Apple was failing than a principled stand, considering 3 years prior Wayback machine shows only a 404 for the privacy page. I can see how some folks might infer from this that Apple leaned into privacy as a means of spiting a supplier.

> Google Maps was obviously still going to have an app on iOS

If I was a paying Apple customer, I'd sure appreciate having that option at launch rather than months later with no firm date. Even in 2019 my real estate agent insists that Apple Maps is garbage, I can only imagine the chaos in 2012.

[1]: https://www.google.com/?q=%22site:asciiwwdc.com%20%22fundame... [2]: https://asciiwwdc.com/

[Austin_Conlon]

They could've put a "beta" badge on Maps like they did with Safari, and kept Google Maps preinstalled alongside it. Perhaps many people conflated the hilariously bad looking 3D Flyover bugs with core functionality and the initial impression stuck.

[robenkleene]

Have two maps apps installed by default on a new iPhone...? I can't imagine Apple doing that under any circumstances.

I'm not sure about the "Beta" tag, it doesn't strike me as a terrible idea. But collecting refining map data is a project measured in decades, when should the Beta tag be removed?

[Wowfunhappy]

Installed by default, I can't imagine.

However, Apple has certainly offered beta downloads before. Bootcamp Assistant was an optional "Beta" download before it was included with OS X in Leopard. Safari also began its life as a Beta web browser from Apple, even as there were alternatives from other companies.

[scarface74]

That’s a very Samsung/Microsoft like approach. Besides that, the Maps app was always made by Apple. They used Google’s data. When they switched over to their own data, it still carried your data over.

[Angostura]

I think the answer is quite simple. They should have launched as a beta or public preview ‘This is going to be great, it’s got these great new features but we need everyone to help us improve the data”

[ori_b]

> I don't see what they could have done differently? Even in hindsight this seems like the right call?

Put in enough resources so that it wasn't mediocre. If it's that important to do, it's important to do well.

[robenkleene]

I do not believe that Apple (a design company), can match the quality of Google (an algorithmic organization company), simply by allocating resources.

You can read two excellent essays by Justin O'Beirne on Google[0] vs. Apple's[1] methodologies for creating and organizing mapping data. It seems a straightforward conclusion that mapping is simply a problem that's a better fit for Google as a company than Apple.

Also note how slowly Apple's strategy has been rolled out (3% of the U.S.’s area in 2018), waiting for this work to be rolled out simply wasn't tenable.

[0]: https://www.justinobeirne.com/google-maps-moat

[1]: https://www.justinobeirne.com/new-apple-maps