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?

Case example: the Sony SPK-HCE waterproof case for video cameras. I tried to find a good, in-depth review, or even just a blog post by someone who had used one and could shed some light into wether dumping over 200€ on this thing is worth it. However, searching for “SPK-HCE review” on Google returned 1660 results, of which the third goes to ZDNet, in fact, the Google summary says “Get the full unbiased review of SPK-HCESPK-HCE at ZDNet Reviews. Each review comes complete with video or image galleries, Camcorder Waterhousing …”. Bullshit! Click on the link, and land here (click for full-size version):

So…you are showing me ZERO ratings, and ZERO reviews, but at least a dozen links to online stores where I can’t even buy this accessory, but a whole different camera!! Google: you suck, you cannot tell SEO-laden pages apart from good review sites, and ZDNet: you suck too, for polluting the Internet with shitty useless content designed to fool users and drive revenue.

Reading this post on iLounge about TomTom’s plans to include their real-time navigation software on the iTunes AppStore (or lack thereof) brings back memories from when I was developing advanced vehicle tracking systems a few years ago.

The root of the issue seems to be this line on the iPhone SDK’s license agreement:

“Applications may not be designed or marketed for real time route guidance; automatic or autonomous control of vehicles, aircraft, or other mechanical devices; dispatch or fleet management; or emergency or life-saving purposes.”

This stems from a chain of license rights that originates with the providers of mapping data, such as NAVTEQ or Tele Atlas. Apple has integrated Google Maps on the iPhone, which in turn uses mapping data from these providers under license. Pricing of map data varies with respect of what you intend to do with it, and for some reason, the providers value real-time tracking of anything as a top dollar use.

Apple had to accept the licensing restrictions that Google’s providers impose, and they very likely include real-time navigation and tracking of objects. In fact, Google Maps terms of use read:

“Except where you have been specifically licensed to do so by Google, you may not use Google Maps with any products, systems, or applications installed or otherwise connected to or in communication with vehicles, capable of vehicle navigation, positioning, dispatch, real time route guidance, fleet management or similar applications.”

This trait started when Microsoft released MapPoint 2004, which included for the first time a clause in its terms that forbid using the application for real-time tracking of vehicles and objects, and any such tracking should have a minimum 15-second delay between reality and display. With MapPoint 2002, one could use ActiveX objects to integrate the maps into a third-party application, like I did when I released StumbVerter, and fully control the map and data overlays. This meant that one could write a VERY cheap real-time tracking software application to go with the GPS tracking hardware the company sold. One could thus use pretty good maps of Europe and North America for a little over 400 Euros, compared to quotes I received that licensed only Spain for some 90.000 Euros! Microsoft got some heat over this, but defended its position by stating this restrictions had been imposed by the map data providers.

I don’t think TomTom will have a problem placing their software on AppStore, as they don’t infringe on the intended Location Services API clause, and maybe Apple will ease this clause by stating that the restriction is on using Google Maps rather than your own licensed map data for displaying location of tracked objects.

When I started reading some interesting articles about Facebook’s new ad system, which is supposed to combine what your friends are doing, buying and recommending, with the available ad content, my first thought aside from the spying-on-users issue was “How are they going to get the little guys on board this thing?”.

Let me explain: CocaCola doesn’t really -need- to advertise on Facebook, as it’s one (if not the most) recognized brands on the planet. Still, it has created this animated Sprite Sips Facebook application, which you can “boost” with codes found under Sprite bottle caps. The app will most likey be installed by a large number of people, basically, because it comes from a well-recognized brand which is also regarded as cool, many of which already drink the stuff on a regular basis.

What is happening is that users are marketing to other users with well-known products – but would they do the same with, say, ‘BoogieCola’? This imaginary company may be desperate to market its product as much as it can, having just launched into an already crowded space, with a product that may not be so nice and with a brand image which could be the result of the CEO’s 5-year-old son’s doodling on a paper. In other platforms, they could buy their way into the top advertising spots (read: Google AdWords), and make an impact across a wide population segment. While not a guarantee of success, at least you will not be able to say you failed because nobody knew you existed. On Facebook, this company would have probably gone largely ignored – as the ads targeted to users would probably point to the already-know, already-heavily-recommended brand. Thus, it will be pretty hard for newcomers to make Facebook an effective platform for entry into a market. In the end, the (OMG I’ve said it, I will burn in hell!) long tail of advertisers, who provide a sizable chunk of Google’s revenue, will not be sending their bucks to Facebook.

Could this new system make substantial revenue for Facebook? I guess so – but not in the long term, and most definitely not enough to even consider taking Google out of the picture. Google is omnipresent in many countries and market segments, while Facebook has had an impact basically in the US, a large market by itself, but again, not as big as the one the Big G has access to.

Google is already tracking you on millions of sites, thanks to this little piece of code:

<script src=”http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js” type=”text/javascript”>
</script>
<script type=”text/javascript”>
_uacct=”UA-xxxx-x”;
urchinTracker();
</script>

Do you use GMail? Well, Google is scanning the contents of all your messages, and they also log the IP address you use to check your email – thus, they can tie all your browsing habits to your individual email account and the content of your emails. This is a huge amount of information for any company to gather about individuals. Additionally, Google keeps records of the searches you perform on their engine, thus giving them yet another layer of data to check. Scared yet?

In contrast, Facebook announced that they will be launching a targeted advertising platform with 44 partner sites, which will add a tracking code informing Facebook of your browsing habits. More by Om Malik here. I personally don’t care about 44 sites, but about the millions of sites using Google Analytics, and about the people using GMail to check their corporate email accounts, thus potentially having sensitive material indexed by Google. Food for thought.

View some live coverage by Engadget here, who are in a conference call with Google’s PR. The new mobile OS will be called Android – a damn ugly name if you ask me, but we’ll see if it will live up to expectations, with the iPhone raising the bar much higher than Symbian ever has done.

The Los Angeles Times provides a great Google Maps mashup that tracks the huge fires currently raging in southern California in almost real time. What is impressive is the amount of resources committed, with one fire pulling in almost 1800 firefighters. Here is a screenshot of the map, click on it to go to the LA site:

So, the great news over at TechCrunch today were that Google has added a feature called Mail Fetcher to GMail, which basically allows you to grab email from other services, such as Yahoo.

This sounds great, and it probably is for GMail users, but it is also great for Google. Someone with legal wits should point a browser towards GMail’s terms & services, and check whether there are any provisions to exclude or include, explicitly or not, the scanning of all incoming and outgoing email from these other services. Maybe Google will also scan the contents of the additional email services you add to your GMail account to send you targeted ads. Maybe Google will have even better demographics by tying the IP addresses found in the headers of all the additional emails with their own database of registered users. There is a saying that nobody sells dimes for 9 cents, it’s a rather good saying to move your wallet by.

Any lawyers in the audience?

Reading with interest the flurry of posts about Google’s purchase of YouTube for around $1.6 billion, it seems the main worry right now is that since Google is a very rich company ($131 billion cap!), the lawsuits for copyright violations will start raining faster than you can say MPAA. Mark Cuban is particularly pessimistic about the business decision.

My take is that Google in general, Larry and Sergey in particular, are rather smart, and would not have taken this step, putting the entire company at risk, without first having an agreement with the main content providers that would be likely to sue. This would include TV networks, MPAA, RIAA and the usual suspects. A very obvious conclusion is that if there is money to be made placing ads on content, or selling premium accounts the way Flickr does, why can this not be shared with the copyright owners?

A more twisted conclusion is that the copyright owners could be giving up on microcontrolling every individual byte in an Orwellian manner, and see the light. What is better at promoting new content than the word-of-mouth of millions of fans?

YouTube videos are of notoriously bad quality for the most part, in essence, making it possible to turn the originals into streamable flash clips. Have you ever tried to watch a video full screen? It sucks. What the clip may do is convince me to go out and buy the DVD!

Time will see, but I place my bets on a blanket all-you-can-eat license that will allow YouTube to promote content, keeping both users and moguls happy. 15-second ads at the start of each video? Maybe, but then if you pay us $19.95 a year…

I was reading an article over at The Register, an excellent tech news site (don’t forget to check the BOFH!), that explains a plan by Google to use a microphone connected to your PC to record the ambient sound, extract information about what you are watching on a nearby TV, and then deliver targeted advertising to you based on your selection. I wonder what would they deliver if you are a horror movie fan, or if you are watching Sir David Attenborough’s nature documentaries…but I digress.

In my book, this is plain and simple espionage. There are laws in some countries (also at state level in the U.S.) that govern wiretapping and conversation recording; in some cases, recording as long as you have the consent of one of the parties involved is OK, in others it is just plain illegal. Of course, Google would argue that they do not send the actual sound anywhere, but only a mere derived “signature”. Jim Atkinson’s tscm.com site has some really good information on the subject, as he has been dedicated to hunting down the spies for decades.

All this brings me to a new subject, which is the amount of information that Google may already be collecting about you – personally. Do you have a Gmail account? Do you know about something called Google Analytics? Some of you will have already put two and two toghether (answer is not three). Gmail privacy statement mentions:

Google scans the text of Gmail messages in order to filter spam and detect viruses, just as all major webmail services do. Google also uses this scanning technology to deliver targeted text ads and other related information. This is completely automated and involves no humans.

OK, so they have the contents of every email you send and receive, classified in terms of what sort of things you may buy if they present you with targeted advertising. On the other hand, Google Analytics is a statistics tool widely used by people and companies to track usage of their websites with a great deal of precision. Information collected by Analytics includes the IP addresses of visitors, every action they take, and every navigation path they follow.

Now, combine the two bits of information common to your Gmail account, and somebody.com’s tracking data of your browsing session – the IP address used to send the email, or to browse the site. It can be argued that in many cases, these IP address can be dynamic, or belong to a large organization behind a proxy – but hey, Google is now potentially handling millions of bits of statistical data, so they could eventually learn a great deal about what you do online. Now they only need what you are watching on TV, and your assimilation will be complete. Resistance is futile.

Can anyone say separation of powers? If you are really concerned about your privacy, you probably know what this will do, once placed in your hosts file:

# [Google Inc]
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com

If you don’t, then welcome to the era of privacy deprivation..

[Edit: I have changed the post's title, as it looks like the strike tag was causing problems with indexers...sigh]