[jad]

> It seems like the quality level maintained by Steve Jobs is quickly deteriorating in favour of business moves designed to wrest more control off Google.

This stuff gets so tiresome. Apple has been buying maps companies for years. Steve Jobs personally ran acquisitions at Apple. He decided which mapping companies to buy and when he did he probably had a good idea of how they would fit into the platform. Development of the new Maps app was surely underway when Jobs was still alive. What do you think happened? Jobs died and the executive team was like, "Alright everyone, we've got 6 months until the iOS 6 beta is out. Let's cancel our contract with Google and get this shit maps app in there pronto!"

The reality is that Apple has been dependent upon their biggest competitor for a strategically important smartphone feature. The Wall Street Journal reported[1] months ago that Google initially balked at letting Apple have access to Street View, and didn't allow Apple access to turn-by-turn data. If the issue was only quality, Apple could have turned to Bing or Yahoo. They didn't because owning this technology is a strategic necessity in the smartphone market as it stands today. Having features dictated by competitors is not an option.

It's true that the quality of the maps app isn't great. I get looney search results (even when tapping on their search suggestions) and it's extremely frustrating. But there is something to be said for getting it shipped and starting the process of refinement and improvement. It only becomes a strategic problem if the quality doesn't improve noticeably with time.

[1] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:FwvSLvr...

[qq66]

It's not that tiresome. Jobs would have clearly done things differently. He would have either 1) paid retail prices for Google Maps API access until Apple could build a shippable product, or 2) Gone on stage and painted Google as a big evil bully who was stealing good Maps from iPhone users -- the media headlines would read "Google Reneges on Loyal Apple customers" or something like that. Notably, the second option is not available to Tim Cook.

[jad]

> Jobs would have clearly done things differently.

What's almost as tiresome as the now persistent refrain of "this wouldn't have happened if Steve was still alive" are claims to know what Steve would have actually done if he were still alive. Your second option is ridiculous on its face.

[qq66]

Look at what happened with the iPhone 4 antenna issue. He just went on stage and said, "This isn't that big of a problem, and if it really bothers you, put it in a case." That is clearly not an option for Steve Ballmer or Larry Page in the same situation.

[DrJokepu]

> Notably, the second option is not available to Tim Cook.

But they could just send in Forstall, he could easily do it and get away with it.

[drivebyacct2]

In that case, I'm glad Tim Cook handled it the way he did. I'm an Android user who would be happy to see people checking out Android 4.0, 4.1 and finding out that it's much better than what they think they know of Android.

At the same time, I totally respect and get why Apple did this. I applaud competition with Google Maps (I'd love to see OSM become a success too).

[lhnz]

>> It only becomes a strategic problem if the quality doesn't improve noticeably with time.

The negative PR and reduction in the quality of the core experience might cause a reduction in sales or consumer opinion of Apple.

>> What do you think happened? Jobs died and the executive team was like, "Alright everyone, we've got 6 months until the iOS 6 beta is out. Let's cancel our contract with Google and get this shit maps app in there pronto!"

Your assertion that Apple had a choice between owning strategic maps technology or licensing from others is incorrect as they are not mutually exclusive.

I have to say I don't think it's a smart strategic move -- somebody has acted on a false dilemma and as a result reduced product quality. As you pointed out yourself, Apple could have gone to Microsoft or Yahoo to retain quality or they could have fought harder with Google to keep the contract for a while longer. It was not a bad strategic decision to buy maps companies and to put R&D into creating their own maps solution, however it is a bad decision to release Apple maps in this state.

[jad]

> The negative PR and reduction in the quality of the core experience might cause a reduction in sales or consumer opinion of Apple.

Could be. Remember though that they also added at least one notable feature (turn-by-turn), so it's more like 1 step forward and 2 steps back rather than just 2 steps back.

Also remember that Apple took a pounding for the whole antennagate thing, to the point where Steve Jobs had to hold a news conference to get everyone to calm down. That was an issue that "regular people" knew about. (I was asked by people at a bar if the iPhone 4 I had at the time had reception issues, for example.) And yet, Apple sold a ton of iPhone 4s, and no long-term damage was done to the Apple or iPhone brand.

So I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this will cause long-term problems. However, it is important for Apple to improve their maps data quickly.

[berkut]

> Development of the new Maps app was surely underway when Jobs was still alive. What do you think happened? Jobs died and the executive team was like, "Alright everyone, we've got 6 months until the iOS 6 beta is out. Let's cancel our contract with Google and get this shit maps app in there pronto!"

No, I'm sure SJ wanted to get way from Google. But I doubt he would have let Apple release iOS6 maps in the state they're in if he were still in control.

Maybe they should have kept it US only and still use the old Google one for outside the US, as that seems to really be where the quality issue is with the data.

[blub]

Yahoo is using Nokia's API and Bing is in the process of doing the same thing.