I suspect that cutting the google deal short was intentionally done leave Google flat footed with no map app on iOS. Simply put it cuts google out of that market for a while leaving Apple the only major player on their device.
While it isn't perfect being the only big map player in that system means that over time customers will just accept that is their only option, and those with problems will see improvements. By the time Google releases a map app many customers may already be committed to the default experience.
Some folks may continue to make comparisons between the two and switch back, but the majority may not and thus an easy win for Apple where if there were a competing Google Maps they would face a far steeper challenge even with time to improve their own product.
As for partnering with MS I think Apple simply wanted to go on their own considering that they were already were severing a partnership over maps.
I disagree with the cutting the deal short. The Maps app was in beta for months, was announced in April and I bet that Google knew it was coming even before the official announcement.
Quite frankly, Google has had plenty of time to be working on a Maps application for iOS. It's not like they have to reinvent the wheel with this, they have iOS development teams and experience with mobile mapping applications.
I think that Google willfully chose not to have a product ready. It's a good explanation when you realize they had months of lead time, and when you factor in all of the CEO "I don't know nothing' about no app" comments.
Google's business interests are weird here. They presumably were getting _paid_ by Apple for maps integration. Do they really want to say "Sure, stop paying us, and for free we'll make sure to provide an app of our own to your customers that's just as high quality?" On the other hand, Google is certainly otherwise often in the business of providing free apps to people that they try to get as many people as possible to use on other people's devices (I mean, Android. On the other hand, even though Android is theoretically free, i think every device maker that uses it has a paid contract with google). It's pretty unclear what Google's interests and plans are when it comes to this stuff.
Google is in the strange position of wanting to get a piece of hardware into the hands of every person while at the same time having services that they want everyone to use because that is how they make their money.
They are constantly biting their own hand because making any service Android specific limits it's use and making services available on competing hardware limits their own hardware penetration.
Since Apple makes all their money on hardware they just don't care. They focus on making the best hardware they can and then build software on top of it. Jobs for the longest time didn't even want to put iTunes on Windows but eventually relented when people were buying iPods for their Windows PCs.
That's a good point. Certainly the average iPhone user is now learning the value of a good mapping app vs the value of a crappy mapping app. If they launch their free map app a few weeks after iOS6 launch, they've taught Apple and a lot of people a lesson...
Word has it they're working on the iOS app and have been frantically doing so.
I don't see any advantage in willfully delaying. They only shaft potential lost users in doing so. I doubt any many folks folks are dumping their iPhone due to the maps and all Google does is loose contact with customers in the process and give Apple a chance to fill the void.
> leaving Apple the only major player on their device.
> over time customers will just accept that is their only option
As Tim Cook mentioned, there are already map apps available for Bing, MapQuest and Waze, and turn-by-turn navigation apps from all the major players. Google announced that they have not submitted their own maps app for iOS.
Unless, perhaps rightly, you're considering Google the only major player. More reason for Apple to switch now.
That's about what you expected to pay for a PC back then.
My family bought a 486 DEC PC with a 15" monitor and no sound card for around a similar price (granted DEC computers had much higher build quality than amstrads)