Up until now, Google Maps was entirely one-size-fits-all mapping software. Now they are adding some customization tools to go a little beyond that (and touch into more of the long tail).
That said, I think the Geoff fellow put it best when he commented on the post:
"Sure, Google is great at the tech, but they are a bit weak when it comes to building 'places'. They don't have enough touchy feely people over there to get the warms and fuzzies right. So, their sites, while they work well, all feel very cold and sterile, and don't really build a social community. That's why Google Video didn't take off and they bought YouTube."
Our startup is geography-heavy, but our mantra has been 'we are not a mash-up.' This is because we are aiming for the warm and fuzzies (serving the needs of a specific community of users), and almost all mash-ups that I've seen lack the warm and fuzzies because the Google Maps API limits their ability to custom-tailor their service and presentation. I don't think these few new buttons greatly change that.
As an aside, one of the reasons I really enjoyed Chris Anderson's speech at Startup School was his repeated assertion that one-size-fits-all solutions are (in some ways) necessarily inferior to products and services that focus on the niche.
haha, great (tragicomic) headline. but i think this is an important lesson. api/platform providers and the startups that build on top don't really have aligned interests when it comes to building companies. mashup makers (e.g. frappr/platial) are basically free R&D for the platform (google), and if a startup creates a mashup with a lot of value, it's unlikely the startup will be able to capture it -- or conversely it's doubtful that google will be able to keep its hands out of the cookie jar and sit back while the profits go to the startup (yes, google could acquire the startup but it certainly isn't obligated to.)
microsoft left dozens if not hundreds of startups in its wake this way (cherry picking good ideas and bundling them with the next version of office/windows/visual studio), and i'm sure there are more contemporary examples in the making (amazon could do this with S3/EC2, e.g. by selling an "s3drive" or other value-added services.)
it's too bad to see this though; it's a big disincentive to innovate on top of these platforms.
Good points. I agree that there are important lessons to learn, but I wouldn't say that there is a big disincentive just yet. A powerful (open) platform is attractive because it brings to light new opportunities. The lesson would be not to sit idle afterwards. A successful mashup/product proves that there exists a market; a starutp with foresight will develop themselves fully enough as to not fully rely on the API. As you said, it's R&D for the platform companies, and they can dominate the startup's space if the startup doesn't keep iterating.
Even though YouTube was not built on a Google platform, there're some parallels to be drawn. Google had a video service; YouTube was better. With their advantage in size and resources, Google could have put out something better, but YouTube had such a lead already. True, YouTube didn't have to rely on Google's API, but even Statsaholic is continuing on without Amazon's Alexa.
I really don't think most of these mashups INHERENTLY will die. They might take a huge beating in how fast they grow but I think if the current mashups continue to focus on their CURRENT userbase's needs, they can turn it into a modestly profitable venture. Not everything has to return a fortune financially:)
I do pity the startups that raised millions and were based off of google maps. It never made sense to me but hopefully they know something I don't about their long-term strategy.
If these products are ultimately just about creating your own maps, it's merciful that Google kills them off. If they are something significantly more, then they've gotten plenty of a head start from their create-your-own-map functionality.
That said, I think the Geoff fellow put it best when he commented on the post:
"Sure, Google is great at the tech, but they are a bit weak when it comes to building 'places'. They don't have enough touchy feely people over there to get the warms and fuzzies right. So, their sites, while they work well, all feel very cold and sterile, and don't really build a social community. That's why Google Video didn't take off and they bought YouTube."
Our startup is geography-heavy, but our mantra has been 'we are not a mash-up.' This is because we are aiming for the warm and fuzzies (serving the needs of a specific community of users), and almost all mash-ups that I've seen lack the warm and fuzzies because the Google Maps API limits their ability to custom-tailor their service and presentation. I don't think these few new buttons greatly change that.
As an aside, one of the reasons I really enjoyed Chris Anderson's speech at Startup School was his repeated assertion that one-size-fits-all solutions are (in some ways) necessarily inferior to products and services that focus on the niche.