> Since then, we’ve built this functionality directly into Google Maps with Location Sharing
That's simply not true. You can share your location with someone else, but you can't request it from someone else _and_ automatically receive it after a timeout, in case they are incapacitated. This was probably 90% of the reason to use Trusted Contacts.
I understand that companies need to kill some products so others can thrive, but don't gaslight me into thinking that functionality exists where it does not.
My thoughts exactly. Location Sharing in Google Maps is a totally different use case.
Commercially it was probably a tough sell. Engagement metrics were probably abysmal - since you only need it in exceptional circumstances.
It's really sad though. This was one of the products that really stood out for me. Not just a gimmick, but something that can really make a difference. I wish Google had shown a bit more idealism and kept it around.
You add them into your trusted contacts, and those contacts can request your current position on-demand. You can either accept, deny or it will auto-accept if left alone. You are always aware if a request was sent, nothing is done without your knowledge even after the fact.
By the way, why doesn't the perma-share work for you? I totally get that it doesn't. Just curious what you feel is the difference. Is it that it's possible to know when it's being queried and to stop that? I guess I could see a use-case for that.
> Since then, we’ve built this functionality directly into Google Maps with Location Sharing
That's simply not true. You can share your location with someone else, but you can't request it from someone else _and_ automatically receive it after a timeout, in case they are incapacitated. This was probably 90% of the reason to use Trusted Contacts.
I understand that companies need to kill some products so others can thrive, but don't gaslight me into thinking that functionality exists where it does not.