So Erick Schonfeld took a shot at the iPhone maps app, which uses Google Maps as its data source, and all other car-mount GPS manufacturers such as TomTom or Garmin, saying that Google should make Apple beg for maps navigation. I don’t agree with much of his post, here is why:

1. Real-time navigation availability depends on the type of license map data is served under, as I explained in a post a few months ago. The map data served by Google to Apple for use on the iPhone does not allow real-time, turn-by-turn navigation, thus, it is cheap and much less money flows from Apple to Google for it. This is explicitly referenced in the iPhone SDK’s licensing terms. Google must be paying a premium on the data it serves on the Android GPS app for this kind of use.
2. A real-time navigation system depends on constant availability of maps, which means online devices, such as an Android phone running Google’s app, must have perfect wireless coverage, in terms of both connectivity and bandwidth, and we know this is next to impossible. A comment on Erick’s post suggests Google caches map data when the route is created, which would be fine…if people followed the route perfectly. Many times, this is impossible for a number of reasons, such as bad routing, roadworks, or heavy traffic. All of these require re-routing, so Google, and any online system, would need to cache also every possible deviation and re-routing from the original path, which is impossible. There is a reason why TomTom’s iPhone app comes loaded with several hundred megabytes of map data.
3. The GPS chipset on mobile devices is not well-suited for high-rate position updates. This is evident if you use TomTom’s iPhone app, and is also evident as TomTom includes a separate GPS chipset in their iPhone car kit, for “…the most accurate positioning“. Since position update rate means battery consumption, and a phone has a ton of battery-consuming electronics on its own, the GPS typically provides less frequent updates than a dedicated GPS device.
4. Dedicated GPS units are best at taking you from A to B, re-routing you within a couple of seconds if you deviate, and showing you the location of speed traps safety cameras and other points of interest (POI). As you go up the price ladder, you are provided with additional functionality, such as voice commands, phone connectivity for hands-free audio and real-time traffic data. On this particular point, I totally agree with Matt Burns on his CrunchGear post, who says of GPS makers: “They are in the habit of producing 78 different versions of the same GPS. Each model steps you up $20 and adds another feature“. But I digress. With such a model, of charging for map updates, or for safety cameras, would they not also be charging for POI data if it was of any real use in vehicle navigation? Like updates to the “Restaurants” category? No, the issue here is that POIs are the least used feature in GPS navigators, and the makers know this. You may occasionally look for the nearest gas station, but that’s about it. If you want to eat something, you will ask around at your destination, or will have looked up options before the trip, but very very rarely do people go looking for stuff on their GPS devices. It’s true that Google makes it a lot easier to access this kind of information, and puts it right there on your face, but nothing will beat a dedicated service such as Yelp, or a dedicated app such as Bliquo (shameless plug for my good friend David Douek, who works there now, hope it helps your SEO at tiny bit!).
5. You can pick up a dedicated GPS unit for almost what you will spend on car mounts and cig-lighter adapter cables. They have faster routing, better planning capabilities, no need for wireless connectivity, and a much better audio output than any mobile phone.
6. You are supposed to be looking at the road while the GPS guides you by voice instructions, not at the GPS screen while it provides you with fancy data and/or graphics. Once you safely stop to look at the GPS, there are much better ways to present useful data, such as POIs, than Google’s interface. Many countries are looking into forcing GPS manufacturers into blanking the screen while the vehicle is moving in order to further prevent distractions to the driver.
7. TomTom, as an example, can add natural voice route requests to their higher-end units via software updates. Some already feature dictated destination input, but its use is clunky and not very useful right now – I bet we will see improvements soon. All it takes is the licensing of a proper speech-recognition engine. Google doesn’t have any major competitive advantage here, other than being the first to implement an (allegedly pending actual reviews) good functionality.
8. TomTom owns Tele Atlas, and Nokia owns NAVTEQ, which combined provide a huge chunk of the map data used by Google Maps. I love you Fake Steve, but you’re wrong on this one – GPS makers are fine, and they know it. Unless Google is planning on re-creating all the map data on their own of course, which is discussed extensively on this post by James Fee, but this would only mean Google would be free from other providers, not crush them.
9. Erick argues that “…the future of mobile apps are Web apps”. I think this is a huge over-simplification – the future of some mobile apps are apps that pull some or all of their data from the web. I regularly use an iPhone app that provides emergency response information on hazardous material (HazMat) incidents – I would be screwed if I had to depend on cellular coverage and a web service for this! We all saw how long Apple’s hard stance on iPhone web apps lasted, and the App Store just broke the 100.000 approved app barrier, so I rest my case.
10. Further from the GPS-centric topic, I’ll question wether Google really developed the Mail and Search functionalities of the iPhone – AFAIK, these are implementations of Mail and Spotlight respectively, can anyone confirm this one?

While it does contain most of the ad-hoc stack, the recently announced Wi-Fi Direct standard is actually an attempt to become more like Bluetooth. Ever since Wi-Fi was invented, ad-hoc mode allowed two or more adapters to form a peer-to-peer network without an access point (AP) running the show. In certain scenarios, there would be connectivity problems when adapters were not configured for automatic IP assignment in the auto-discovery range, or had static IPs setup. Saving these, the user would then have to make sure his operating system had enabled the appropriate sharing protocols so that meaningful things could happen, such as sending files from one machine to the other.

Ever since Bluetooth was invented, it provided a communications stack, and a protocol stack, which encompassed a growing number of profiles. An application only had to talk to the right profile in order to establish communication with another Bluetooth device supporting the same profile, for example, serial port, audio gateway or FTP. During device discovery, a Bluetooth device would query the other about its available profiles, and would then choose the right one as needed. As a practical and recent example, the iPhone initially supported the handset profile, which provides very rudimentary headset functionality and leaves out things like address book access. Over time, the iPhone has been upgraded with more profiles, some as complex as A2DP which allows highish-definition audio to be sent to stereo headphones or speakers. I say “highish” as it uses an audio bandwidth of 16kHz, way below the normal audio response of a set of headphones, leading to a noticeable decrease in quality. But I digress.

In my view, the press release was very badly worded, making it appear as a re-branding of old-time ad-hoc, when it really implies adding a number of protocol stacks and profiles to the standard ad-hoc mode. It is also an attempt to take Bluetooth head-on, with the argument that Wi-Fi is a gateway to a bigger number of services – Bluetooth DSL router, anyone? no? I rest my case. Having such a set of profiles would obviate the need to have Bluetooth chipsets on top of Wi-Fi, which are always an added cost and source of radio interference. We would then have to see how audio accessories cope with this, but then again, I’ve not seen many people carrying Bluetooth headsets around, while car kits can accommodate a Wi-Fi chipset thanks to their board space and bigger battery.