Hacker News Reader

Comment by pilif | Hacker News Reader

Not that it's really relevant for us end-users, but this still says nothing. It only means that Apple didn't want to continue using Google Maps. It says nothing about what terms Google was suggesting for continued use. If Google demanded something totally unreasonable (like a patent agreement legitimizing Android, or 10 times the money Google was asking before), then Apple didn't really have a choice to leave - no matter how Eric Schmidt is wording this now.

In the end the only thing that matters is that we end-users lose greatly functionality-wise because two large companies behave like children. And us end users don't know better than finger-pointing and playing along (not that we have any choice in the matter anyways)

View on HN

> two large companies behave like children

I only see one child (Apple) here.

Perhaps, but you really just have no idea what conversations are happening behind closed doors.

Google did something to cause Apple to do this, as well as Apple already reducing their use of Google, and it's all private. Childish things would include talking in public.

How do you know Google did anything?

They took it public with this statement, right?

Probably Apple had preferential access to API ( like free for 5 years ), Apple still wanted to have free access plus probably extended APIs (like directions, vector maps). But since Google is not providing Maps API for free anymore for high volume, they may have wanted Apple to pay like everybody else. Apple said no (too expensive, akin to microsoft tax on FAT LFN ), Google said sorry. End of story.

The only people I see acting like children here are Apple fanboys, Google fanboys, and tech blog writers. Not Apple themselves, nor Google, except where one of the three groups above starts putting words in their mouth.

Full disclosure: I am one of those three types of people above but that doesn't mean I agree with the actions of others in that group.

"something totally unreasonable (like a patent agreement legitimizing Android)"

Doesn't strike me as that unreasonable.

Nope. For us, that's perfectly legitimate. But it likely isn't for Apple who seem to follow the philosophy lately that any phone that's not an iPhone should be illegal.

And that would make a patent agreement entirely unreasonable for Apple

I think it's pretty clear from the quote that Google did not offer unreasonable terms.

How is it clear from the quote that Google did not offer unreasonable terms? Would you mind expanding a little?

It's very easy to make assumptions that the reason Apple chose to roll their own was because Google hiked their prices, but where's the smoking gun?

There isn’t one, why should there be?

The point isn't that "Google hiked their prices," the point is that there are more than a few possibilities for legitimate Google-driven business reasons for the maps change instead of just assuming Apple hates their users and wants them to have crappy maps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com