[bicknergseng]

I would just like to point out that the lack of turn by turn nav in Google Maps on iOS was an Apple decision, not a Google one. Nav has been available in Google maps on Android for a long time now. Hell, they have decent biking turn by turn.

[exhilaration]

No, the existing license Apple had for Google's map data specifically forbade turn by turn. According to the Verge, Google wanted a few more things before giving Apple turn by turn:

"For its part, Apple apparently felt that the older Google Maps-powered Maps in iOS were falling behind Android — particularly since they didn't have access to turn-by-turn navigation, which Google has shipped on Android phones for several years. The Wall Street Journal reported in June that Google also wanted more prominent branding and the ability to add features like Latitude, and executives at the search giant were unhappy with Apple's renewal terms. But the existing deal between the two companies was still valid and didn't have any additional requirements, according to our sources — Apple decided to simply end it and ship the new maps with turn-by-turn."

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/25/3407614/apple-over-a-year-...

[bicknergseng]

I don't see how that disagrees with my point. Apple deciding not to allow Google to add in turn by turn in exchange for Latitude is an Apple decision and not a Google one. Google isn't just going to give them more for free.

At the risk of making a poorly drawn simile, it would be like if I wanted an In N Out animal style burger, but didn't want the calories. So I decide to make my own inferior turkey burger. The decision to not have an awesome animal style burger that also comes with additional calories is my own, not that of In N Outs. The obvious problem with this simile is that In N Out doesn't have a ton of choice about the caloric content of its burgers, nor does it profit from the additional caloric content, but you get my point. If Google had not given Apple a choice, then yes, it would have been Google's decision. But ultimately, it was Apple who decided against giving Google more. As the article says

>The reports were validated earlier today by Google chairman Eric Schmidt, who was quoted by Reuters saying "what were we going to do, force them not to change their mind? It's their call."

[ralfd]

> "Apple deciding not to allow Google to add in turn by turn"

I find this wording confusing.

It is more fair and more clearer to break the two sides up: The old "Maps" application and any new feature was done by Apple. It was Google who decided to explicitly disallow the usage of their back-end data for turn-by-turn. Which they are of course free to do. And it was Apple who decided not to allow Google control (and user data collection) in a key app. Which is also understandable.

[DougBTX]

> I don't see how that disagrees with my point.

Your point was worded as if Apple had a free choice, buffet style, of which features to have or not. Say Apple wants A but not B, and Google will only sell A+B. Your wording suggests that Apple turned down A, when really they turned down B, so had no option to get A.

[panacea]

"I would just like to make a completely speculative, and probably erroneous assersion as fact...."

[bicknergseng]

"I would just like to make a completely speculative, and probably erroneous assersion as fact about your speculation."

FTFY.

[epo]

An Apple decision? Where is your evidence? I have eaxctly as much evidence that it was a Google decision.