iPhone 5

[BirdyBuddy]

lionking,
Are you using WPA2 for your wireless security settings? I've seen an oddness with the iPhone 5 and iOS6 on WPA2. The latest update was supposed to address that issue. Maybe temporarily trying a different setting just to test it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Great thing about theee phones is you dont have to. Thats kinda the point.



Not if the bloody map doesnt work, The turn by turn is a bit of a waste of time if the phone doent know where you want to go.

Google maps were awesome wherever I travelled. Apple Maps sucks in many of them.

My point was apple maps has seemingly forced Google to give iOS users turn by turn - something they had previously withheld from iOS. So that is a win for end users.

 

[quadraginta]

My point was apple maps has seemingly forced Google to give iOS users turn by turn - something they had previously withheld from iOS. So that is a win for end users.

Why did they do that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why did they do that?

I don't know. Presumably to maintain an advantage on mapping with android devices.

http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crashed-over-voice-guided-directions/

... Spoken turn-by-turn navigation has been a free service offered through Google’s Android mobile OS for a few years now. But it was never part of the deal that brought Google’s Maps to iOS. And sources say Apple very much wanted it to be.

 

[carlitos]

The google map thingie isn't quite the same, as it won't integrate into the rest of the iOS, though, right? Like when an address is highlighted in siri or an internet page or my contacts or whatever, it won't default to google, will it?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The google map thingie isn't quite the same, as it won't integrate into the rest of the iOS, though, right? Like when an address is highlighted in siri or an internet page or my contacts or whatever, it won't default to google, will it?

Since there is not yet a google maps for iOS 6, that remains to be seen.

Based on history, no would be a safe answer, but apple has acknowledged their maps have problems, so they may allow a choice of default map provider. We will have to wait and see.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't know. Presumably to maintain an advantage on mapping with android devices.

http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crashed-over-voice-guided-directions/

... Spoken turn-by-turn navigation has been a free service offered through Google’s Android mobile OS for a few years now. But it was never part of the deal that brought Google’s Maps to iOS. And sources say Apple very much wanted it to be.

Judging from the rest of the article you linked to, Google wasn't the only one maneuvering for advantage or being intransigent.

Maybe it wasn't entirely one-sided.

 

[This is The End]

Judging from the rest of the article you linked to, Google wasn't the only one maneuvering for advantage or being intransigent.

Maybe it wasn't entirely one-sided.

Exactly. Apple wanted it basically for free. Google, rightly, said no to that. Does anyone think that if the positions were reversed Apple would have acted any differently?

But according to people familiar with Google’s thinking, the search giant, which had invested massive sums in creating that data and views it as a key feature of Android, wasn’t willing to simply hand it over to a competing platform.

And if there were terms under which it might have agreed to do so, Apple wasn’t offering them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Judging from the rest of the article you linked to, Google wasn't the only one maneuvering for advantage or being intransigent.

Maybe it wasn't entirely one-sided.

Way to knock down that strawman. I don't recall saying there was only one side, apple did no wrong, or anything similar.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Exactly. Apple wanted it basically for free. Google, rightly, said no to that. Does anyone think that if the positions were reversed Apple would have acted any differently?

I hilited the part you made up.

 

[chulbert]

Exactly. Apple wanted it basically for free. Google, rightly, said no to that. Does anyone think that if the positions were reversed Apple would have acted any differently?

I think it had far more to do with Apple's control over its own core technologies and its relationship with Google than it did with the terms of an agreement. Remember that Maps would have been in development for years before it debuted.

 

[This is The End]

I think it had far more to do with Apple's control over its own core technologies and its relationship with Google than it did with the terms of an agreement. Remember that Maps would have been in development for years before it debuted.

Did you even read that article? It claims that Apple wanted it.

 

[chulbert]

Did you even read that article? It claims that Apple wanted it.

Apple no-doubt wanted it; I'm not disputing that. I'm just emphasizing that Google's proposal of greater control over features and branding was at the heart of the breakup. Along with their souring relationship in general.

Maps is a core technology of smartphones and no company can abide their primary competitor being their source of a core technology.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Apple no-doubt wanted it; I'm not disputing that. I'm just emphasizing that Google's proposal of greater control over features and branding was at the heart of the breakup. Along with their souring relationship in general.

Maps is a core technology of smartphones and no company can abide their primary competitor being their source of a core technology.

Now if we can just find the part of the article where it said they wanted it for free ...

 

[quadraginta]

Way to knock down that strawman. I don't recall saying there was only one side, apple did no wrong, or anything similar.

I never suggested you did. Whose straw man would that be?

You cited the link in an effort to bolster your contention that Google withheld 'turn-by-turn' from Apple in an effort to maintain a market advantage.

The article you cited suggests that a more accurate explanation is that Apple couldn't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with Google over the conditions for using the technology and database.

Those aren't the same thing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I never suggested you did. Whose straw man would that be?

You cited the link in an effort to bolster your contention that Google withheld 'turn-by-turn' from Apple in an effort to maintain a market advantage.

The article you cited suggests that a more accurate explanation is that Apple couldn't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with Google over the conditions for using the technology and database.

Those aren't the same thing.

Requiring iPhone users to look directly at handsets for directions and manually move through each step — while Android users enjoyed native voice-guided instructions — put Apple at a clear disadvantage in the mobile space. And having chosen Google as its original mapping partner, the iPhone maker was now in a position where an archrival was calling the shots on functionality important to the iOS maps feature set.

And this caused Apple — which typically enjoys very tight control over its products — no end of philosophical discomfort, sources say. Apple pushed Google hard to provide the data it needed to bring voice-guided navigation to iOS. But according to people familiar with Google’s thinking, the search giant, which had invested massive sums in creating that data and views it as a key feature of Android, wasn’t willing to simply hand it over to a competing platform.
And if there were terms under which it might have agreed to do so, Apple wasn’t offering them.

I read that as saying Google knew voice-turn-by-turn was a huge advantage, and was not going to act as a 'partner' with Apple and let them have it for reasonable terms.

The fact that Apple couldn't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with Google says nothing about whether either side actually made a reasonable attempt to negotiate a fair deal. And I can't see how it would have been to Googles advantage to offer a 'fair deal'. Do you ?

Which is pragmatically the same as withholding it in order to keep a market advantage.

 

[quadraginta]

Requiring iPhone users to look directly at handsets for directions and manually move through each step — while Android users enjoyed native voice-guided instructions — put Apple at a clear disadvantage in the mobile space. And having chosen Google as its original mapping partner, the iPhone maker was now in a position where an archrival was calling the shots on functionality important to the iOS maps feature set.

And this caused Apple — which typically enjoys very tight control over its products — no end of philosophical discomfort, sources say. Apple pushed Google hard to provide the data it needed to bring voice-guided navigation to iOS. But according to people familiar with Google’s thinking, the search giant, which had invested massive sums in creating that data and views it as a key feature of Android, wasn’t willing to simply hand it over to a competing platform.
And if there were terms under which it might have agreed to do so, Apple wasn’t offering them. I read that as saying Google knew voice-turn-by-turn was a huge advantage, and was not going to act as a 'partner' with Apple and let them have it for reasonable terms.

The fact that Apple couldn't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with Google says nothing about whether either side actually made a reasonable attempt to negotiate a fair deal. And I can't see how it would have been to Googles advantage to offer a 'fair deal'. Do you ?

Which is pragmatically the same as withholding it in order to keep a market advantage.

One could also say that it is pragmatically the same as Apple wanting it without having to pay for it.

 

[chulbert]

I never suggested you did. Whose straw man would that be?

You cited the link in an effort to bolster your contention that Google withheld 'turn-by-turn' from Apple in an effort to maintain a market advantage.

The article you cited suggests that a more accurate explanation is that Apple couldn't come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with Google over the conditions for using the technology and database.

Those aren't the same thing.

I think it depends on the terms. Google may not have technically said no but it may have demanded terms so outrageous that Apple would never concede, which is functionally the same thing. For example, Google may have feared anti-trust repercussions if they outright said no, so they asked for the farm in return.

Now I'm not saying that's what happened but I don't think your conclusion is justified. Sometimes saying no and making an outrageous offer are effectively the same thing.

 

[quadraginta]

I think it depends on the terms. Google may not have technically said no but it may have demanded terms so outrageous that Apple would never concede, which is functionally the same thing. For example, Google may have feared anti-trust repercussions if they outright said no, so they asked for the farm in return.

Now I'm not saying that's what happened but I don't think your conclusion is justified. Sometimes saying no and making an outrageous offer are effectively the same thing.

I didn't have a conclusion. I was responding to TheL8Elvis's conjecture with an alternative suggested by the article he cited.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I didn't have a conclusion. I was responding to TheL8Elvis's conjecture with an alternative suggested by the article he cited.

One could also say that it is pragmatically the same as Apple wanting it without having to pay for it.

Appears to be a conclusion. Is it not a conclusion, but just random information you pulled from the ether ?

I backed up my 'conjecture' with information from the article I originally linked to. You appear to have just pulled things out of thin air.