Apple will instead run its own mapping app, which has a high-quality 3D mode, on the platform.There are many more aspects to how Apple appears to be mounting an attack on what they see as the next battleground. A slightly earlier report, before the developers conference, from Kurzweil AI said,
It was widely reported yesterday that Apple will likely announce at its WWDC in June that the new version of the built-in maps app in iOS6 will not be fed by Google maps. Instead, Apple has developed its own, in-house 3-D mapping database, based on the acquisition of three mapping software companies between 2009 and 2011, Placebase, C3 Technologies, and Poly9.For a demo of their new mapping technology, see the video at that Kurzweil AI link or here. It's slick.
The other factor to consider in Google's decline is their stupidity. Last week, I read on an internal forum at work that Google Shopping is no longer showing any results related to shooting, guns or ammo. Word of this is getting around, but We The People has posted the email from Google in its entirety. The email policy talks about the obvious things - no fraud, provide a valid link to the right product - but never says why they don't approve of hunting, target or competitive shooting. Lacking a clear explanation, it then seems to imply that they are banning all links related to firearms because:
Google Shopping should be compatible with Google’s brand decisions. Google Shopping must be compatible with company brand decisions. Our company has a strong culture and values, and we’ve chosen not to allow ads that promote products and services that are incompatible with these values. In addition, like all companies, Google sometimes makes decisions based on technical limitations, resource constraints, or requirements from our business partners. Our policies reflect these realities.For their part, Google Shopping issued a terse, "We do not allow the promotion or sales of weapons" statement. Obviously not members of the gun culture who are all keenly aware that the weapon is the mind, the gun is simply a refined tool. One could use dozens of things they do allow links to as weapons.
I don't need to remind you that firearms and ammo sales are one of the hottest areas in all of retail right now. The Wall St. Journal is a little mixed about why that might be, but clearly reports that S&W is reporting all sorts of records and while Sturm, Ruger may not be doing as well, they're doing quite well by most company's standards. Unless I miss my guess, the real surge in sales for the election hasn't even started yet, and I expect the health care ruling to give gun sales another kick. NICS background checks pretty much just keep going up, year over year. But Google has just said they will not sip from the cool waters of that revenue stream.
It might be that the Google 's board of directors has suddenly thought they could be sued if a gun bought through their linking service was tied to a crime, but what about liability for anything? Not a weapon, but what if water filter doesn't work or a bike breaks? Or what happens if the camping ax or a hammer or a Mont Blanc pen is used as a weapon? You can't make or sell anything without risk of lawsuit, so why just bar guns or ammo? With this sort of management, they're cutting their own throats.
In my view, here you see the deadly duo: gutless management on one side and a ruthless competitor on the other. My guess is it's already over. Unless something changes, the rest is mere formalities.
Some time ago I made a firearm related search on Google (something stupid like 'I like guns') and came up with a limited number of off topic responses. Tried the same search on bing and was rewarded with a huge number of hits that matched my query. I won't use Google any more - I believe they skew their search results to be PC.ReplyDelete
And it's my understanding they give up much of the private, personal info they glean from us to .govReplyDelete
I wonder if Obama will provide them with a guaranteed loan just as they pull the plug?
Well, it's not like Apple is any less of a control freak when it comes to their products. They may usurp Google's position as a search/ internet platform but I cannot see any product built by Apple as being more "free" than Google.ReplyDelete
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
More like "you pay your money and you take your chances".Delete
Apple is control freak central. In keeping their platforms closed and total control over everything that goes in it, they bought some system stability, not to mention higher profits, at the price of fewer customers. As a bonus, people tend to value things they work harder for, so the people who forked out extra money for an Apple tended to be loyal customers (fanbois).
While I never would have thought I'd say this a decade ago, I think Microsoft is a less evil empire than Google. At this moment in time. That could change.
I just buy the stuff that works and lets me do my things. Which isn't Apple. I picked up an iPod touch and I'm amazingly frustrated by the nonsensical way their software categorizes my songs. It doesn't even make sense. It's a good product, construction and presentation-wise, but their software department needs to have some sense knocked into them with a clue-by-four. Maybe my having been an accountant for the last 11 years made me understand that categorizations shouldn't be seemingly random, arbitrary, and wasteful.Delete
I think Microsoft likes market share and money too much to be a control freak like Apple and Google. I could be wrong. I probably am. They might not have found their particular way to close off their gardens... of weeds.
It appears that whether its .gov control or simply 'nicer people than us' doing it, somebody has to stop this whole free and open exchange of goods and services (and eventually information) thing. It is simply too dangerous to 'society' for it to continue.ReplyDelete
Why is that so many people who want to "make the world a better place" feel the need to do it by placing restrictions somebody else? Human apparently will never change, nor will they ever learn...
What's that Webster saying, "they mean to be good masters, but they mean to be masters"?Delete
Google doesn't hate shooting. Google doesn't love shooting.
Google loves money and Google hates lawsuits.
Attention David Codrea and Sarah Brady: Believe it or not, not everybody on the planet obsesses over gun politics every single waking moment of the day. It's not always all about us.
I didn't say Google hates shooting. In fact, I said they're paranoid about lawsuits and being mismanaged because there's a bunch of money to be made that the fear of lawsuits is keeping them from making.Delete
Go read the second to last paragraph again. And the first couple.
What I said was that Apple has sworn to destroy them, and coupled with their "gutless management" unless something changes, they're headed down.
Sorry, that was kind of a knee-jerk response on my part... :(Delete
No problem. As one of the wise guys says, "it's impossible to write in such a way as it's impossible to misunderstand". At least, I thought he meant something like that.Delete
As they said where I grew up, "y'all come back, now, ya heah?"
To anyone reading this thread, Miquel down at Gunfree Zone has the win on Google's values. NSFWReplyDelete
It will take a lot more than a slightly better map utility to bring Google down. Even if Google stops creating entirely, which is unlikely, they still have a ton of market share momentum to burn before they're in trouble. Look at how many people still have AOL email addresses.ReplyDelete
Absolutely. But AOL isn't much of a force in the industry anymore. Google could simply shrink to irrelevance.Delete
Or not. I always say predictions based on extrapolating long term trends are almost always wrong, and include this one.
It's like saying that between daybreak and noon the temperature on my porch went from 75 to 85, so by midnight it will be 105.