Do they think it's better to pool their resources into one digital map data source? Are the traditional makers using too much legacy tech?
That was a far better investment versus buying a relic from the propreitary vehicle navigation data era who are still surviving selling yearly DVD updates and wondering when the last of their cheese will vanish.....
CarPlay and Android Auto have decimated that business - from a captive reoccurring business model to being completely decimated and gutted. It's another Blockbuster-esque lesson in getting displaced before you know you are being displaced. The smartphone is now your navigation device.
Note: NavTeq, HERE, TomTom, Garmin survivor.
Google started building its own maps in response to Nokia first buying Navteq (in 2006, which Google was depending on at the time) and subsequently offering free navigation on the N95 (S60) and later phones.
Right then the obvious move for Google would have been take open street maps (it was already growing quite nicely then) and improve on it. They even created their own community map tool so they obviously liked the idea of crowdsourcing their data. The reason neither Google, MS, and later Apple opted to use OSM is very simple: the OSM license is a problem for their level of ambition. The baseline OSM experience is nice but the differentiation is what you do on top. That would be things like street-view, having lots of POI data, traffic information, public transport maps, 3D buildings, etc. Those are differentiators in the market and key for these companies to attract more users. They're not interested in helping their competitors get their hands on that. Apple at some point fell out with Google and it became crucial for them to take ownership of the map experience: so they ignored OSM and built their own maps. That's expensive and they pulled it off successfully and it's a decent; competitive experience these days. But it was a conscious choice and not some strategic blunder.
The dilemma these companies have is wanting to keep those things proprietary and OSM not really allowing for bundling proprietary and open data. So, you have basically Google and Apple bootstrapping their own maps in the last 10 years and Navteq and Teleatlas surviving as key data suppliers in the hands of Here and Tom Tom.
Each of those spend billions on improving their maps every year; they are competing with each other and with the OSM community; which is impressively good these days as a baseline map experience. The point this article is making is that a lot of companies that are smarter about pooling their resources are rallying around OSM thus making it increasingly competitive with these big proprietary data silos. So even poring billions in Google and Apple Maps may long term be not enough to keep up. OSM makes maps a commodity and bad maps a liability. Making good maps is expensive and unless you have a trillion $ valuation, you probably should use OSM instead of embarking on your own maps project at great expense. Apple and Google are doing well. I'd argue Here maps is a lot less attractive these days then it was when Nokia bought Navteq (which became Here later). It's still alright for car navigation but that's just one niche application of maps these days.
Provided you attribute OSM data, you can slice across horizontal layers and country borders. [1]
> I'd argue Here maps is a lot less attractive these days then it was when Nokia bought Navteq (which became Here later). It's still alright for car navigation but that's just one niche application of maps these days.
The silver lining here is that limiting scope lowers the effort needed. Much of OSM edits go beyond road network.
[1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidel...
Google and Apple maps have the advantage that businesses will go and update their own data because its in their own interest to make sure those maps are up to date.
The only use I have seen for OSM data is in 3rd party apps like strava where you only really need street data which is pretty accurate on OSM. Or other specialized cases where you mostly provide your own data.
* Maps.me - I used it a lot when travelling last year in Southeast Asia. And I noticed many other travellers were using it too. It was basically expected that people use Maps.me there. I guess it helps that it's also integrated with booking.com data so you have a lot of hostels there if you are looking for a place to stay in new cit. However it's a shame that it's not actual POI data from OSM. I had situations where there were two hostels on map, one from OSM and one from booking.com. booking.com was usually wrong by couple of meters, I guess because only owner with booking.com accound could change it...
* Mapy.cz - I mostly dumped masp.me for this app (it has good website too https://en.mapy.cz/). This app is also using OSM data, but shows information more helpful for tourist/biker. Bike paths are superbly displayed, hiking trails often have proper colors (I still need to check if it's OSM tag's data). I highly recommend it.
I tried OSMAnd and IMO this is really mainly for "OSM enthusiasts", not for causal "normal" users that just want to have good map and know where to walk or bike to.
I've tried but IME this is where OSM isn't great and I find myself using google maps. I hope it improves but I wonder if this is the sort of thing that goes to the core of what sort of product it is. OSM is fantastic at maps, if I want to navigate around my immediate area that's what I'll use. Google maps is a fantastic location database, if I'm trying to find something I'll use it but the maps suck.
If OpenStreetMap was a useful location database, there would be plenty enough people interested in keeping it up to date (businesses would do so, visitors to businesses would do so, etc). But in many areas at the moment, there's barely any locations, so it is hard to use.