- cross-posted to:
- apple@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- apple@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
So what? Nobody asked for an explanation
What I would actually like to know is why Apple don’t make a smart speaker. It’s honestly a product I would have thought they would have actually made. It could be made of metal and cost $12,000, it’s right up there alley.
I don’t think anyone has ever assumed they would make a search engine they don’t really have much pedigree in that area.
Not sure anyone asked for their search engine either. Must be slow times for journalism
In order to create a “viable” search engine business, Apple would be required to “sell targeted advertising,” which is “not a core business” for the company and would go against its “longstanding privacy commitments.”
Not a CORE business. Hmmmmm.
Well, yeah, they hand over everything to Google when using their search engine by default. It’s definitely a business for Apple.
They keep their image as privacy friendly, while taking cool cash to let others harvest the data. Stonks.
Do you have an example of this?
Yes. Apple is defaulting Google in their browsers and search in general. Google is paying Apple. Google is using the data they get when people search on Apple products.
They just want the money from Google.
Aka Google is paying them enough to make it NOT worth it to build a competitor.
Can you imagine the rich kid in a class paying the smartass from doing to well in the exams so as to not bring the class average higher?
This sort of reasoning didn’t prevent them from building their own maps app though. It’s just that their deal prevented Apple from investing resources on building a competitor, and it would take years from the time they start until it’d be a ready product.
Maps is core to privacy and utility for their whole software ecosystem. They offer maps free to devs on iOS so they’re not forced to leak a boatload of data to Google or pay big API fees. It’s a built in that thousands of apps use.
Thousands of apps aren’t using search.
Maybe now, but definitely not originally. Apple grew the Maps ecosystem originally for feature parity reasons, not privacy ones. That’s at least a bit more similar to the Search situation.
Turn-by-turn was the killer feature back in iPhone 4S time frame, and Google refused to allow it iOS, shipping it only on Android. Apple had some geographic features (reverse geo lookup specifically, iirc) prior to this in-house and had started developing their own maps because of the longstanding tension with iOS and Android, but Apple rushed to get turn-by-turn directions out the door in mid-2012, which is partially what caused it to launch pretty half-baked. Google introduced a dedicated Google Maps app on the iOS App Store in late 2012 with turn-by-turn in response to losing millions of daily-active users to the launch of Apple Maps.
Here’s a retrospective from 2013 by The Guardian on the whole thing with a lot more detail:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/11/apple-maps-google-iphone-users
Now, Apple has run a web crawler since at least 2015:
https://www.engadget.com/2015-05-06-apple-web-crawler.html
Apple has been steadily building up its search expertise for the last decade. Notably, it acquired Topsy back in 2015, which was a search engine mostly based on Twitter data:
… then launched a few web-based Spotlight search integrations a few years later (which I can’t find a good source for) which integrated common web searches for things like weather and news directly into Spotlight.
IMO, based on the above (and maybe a bit more), Apple’s explanation in the article doesn’t tell the full story. It doesn’t want to build it, but it could. This is more is about Apple wanting to keep extracting the money from Google and not having to build another also-ran service to directly compete.
There’s no particular reason for every app to search the web, though. There’s plenty of reason for a wide variety of apps to need maps.
Maps are a broad value tool. Searching the web isn’t. A web search engine is just a search engine. It’s not a meaningful value add to any arbitrary developer who wants to build apps for iPhone.
Maps were acquired from Saab defense division.
https://jalopnik.com/how-apple-bought-saabs-futuristic-mapping-software-5879255Also first Google maps for IOS were created in collaboration between Google and Apple, where Apple provided it’s design power and Google provided technology. I think Google didn’t want to collaborate with Apple for future google maps so they break apart.
maps on mobile devices will never be the same
From 2012. Wasn’t apple maps a huge dumpster fire back then?
Can’t speak to back then since I just got my first iPhone but I might like Maps more than Waze and certainly more that googles maps.
deleted by creator
They have safari which uses their own engine which makes it competition to the whole disfunctional chrome family and firefox. This is about search engine, not web browser though…
Chrome didn’t replace Safari.
…You’re a multi-trillion dollar company (in value anyways) operating on billions in operating budget. I expect you, Apple, to make one eventually. Just shut up and try, watch it fail, then withdraw.
they absolutely have an internal search engine, it’s code named pegasus, and it powers some parts of siri, spotlight, store, etc. they’ve had a web crawler for over a decade
Like what they did with Maps… oh wait, Maps is actually pretty good now. Better than Google Maps in many ways. (Especially since it’s ad free and not shoving sponsored things at people)
And it’s voice based navigation is way ahead of Google’s. I mean, both get you there, sure. But no google, I don’t need to know I’m taking a turn on ST257315, when the road doesn’t even have a name sign. Telling me to turn right towards XY at the stop sign (as apple does) makes wayyy more sense.
“In 100ft continue onto I<whatever>”
I’m on the on-ramp, Google, where else do you think I might try to go?
About that,. Applé maps is OSM. So maybe the play is to steal a seach engine
They might take some data from OSM but it’s certainly not “live” OSM. Unfortunate, because that would make correcting data much easier and better (and you wouldn’t have to correct much in the first place)
