[kjackson2012]

A good CEO knows when to stop throwing good money after bad. Apple will NEVER reach the search domain expertise of Google, and Maps is too valuable to let turn into a complete debacle, as Apple has learned.

We have given Apple so much money THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH IT. They have $120B in the bank, more cash than any other company has ever had. They can buy very famous companies for cash, like Cisco, Dell, Facebook, etc, and even banks like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc. This is a crazy amount of cash, and they are clueless as what to do with it.

I know what I would do, I would throw some of that money to improve the quality of my product for the sake of my hundreds of millions of customers. I would admit defeat, and I would pay Google for a license in perpetuity for Google Maps to be on iPhone. I would engage in some sort of rev/data share with the Maps app and throw them a few billion. Win-Win-Win for everyone.

Sure, maybe Apple doesn't extract every single red cent from the deal, but money is of secondary or tertiary importance here. Their money is already relatively useless sitting in a bank account making 0% interest. And sure, maybe they left money on the table, and maybe Apple overpays and gets the short end of the stick for once, but it's called taking one for the team. Customers get the very best maps technology and a permanent agreement to always have access to it, and Apple can stop being distracted by one of the most important aspects of a smartphone experience, which is location services. They can continue innovating in things that will make them money, like newer designs, etc.

[technoslut]

>Apple will NEVER reach the search domain expertise of Google, and Maps is too valuable to let turn into a complete debacle, as Apple has learned.

How can you possibly say that? How was Android 1.0 compared to what it is today? Or Windows 1.0? In your view no one should start anything if they aren't immediately good at it.

What should be questioned is Apple's dedication to Mpas. If they're not interested in creating a high-quality mapping solution then they should give up.

What Apple should do is buy a company to provide the mapping solution for them. The same goes for Nuance. Core technologies of your OS should not be left to a third party.

[cookiecaper]

The point is that you don't push an irrevocable update to a critical service, one of the few things that is somewhat likely involve real-life, actual physical safety, out to millions of millions of users. Yes, maybe when it was brand new, called "experimental", and people hadn't come to trust it, GPS/location stuff could be spotty, but the bar is raised now. While we can all respect that development takes iteration, you just don't force people to use your stuff until it's up to expectation, even if those expectations have been made much higher than they were a few years ago.

A few bugs here and there is understandable, of course. Any honest person looking at the situation knows that Apple's Maps app was not just a matter of a couple semi-serious bugs; it was practically unusable for a large portion of people, and it's an application where unusability could create real safety issues. Completely unacceptable handling on Apple's part. They could have pushed it as a "beta" or "preview release" or other "help us work out the bugs" thing, but they decided to force all users to engage it as their only maps experience. Apple is responsible for this severe oversight in judgment.

[technoslut]

This wasn't the issue I replied to otherwise I would agree with you.

[dreamdu5t]

Apple needs to hold cash to finance new production facilities. If they want to suddenly make a new hardware product that requires new factories and a supply chain, Apple will be able to fund that and beat others to the market while exerting control over the supply.

[ricardobeat]

Do you really believe that 1) they have $120 billion 'sitting in the bank doing 0% interest' 2) have no idea what do with it 3) don't want to improve their products?

They already have Google Maps, and the money.

[amckenna]

> money is of secondary or tertiary importance here

no, the CEO has a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders to increase the market value of the company. If that is through implementing better features then fine, but don't think for a second they would do it for the "greater good" or some principled and un-business like reason.

Things evolve over time, you have to give it a bit of running room to see how things shape up before you simply label it a failure. Besides, competition breeds innovation and innovation is great for the consumers.