Even if that's the case, I'm pretty sure Google wouldn't say no to a truck load of cash for a license, at least until Apple's Maps was more acceptable. Besides, why would Google want to discontinue GMaps on iOS, when GMaps on Android is much better?

And who do you think they are? Some kids on a playground getting their toys and leaving after one of them pooped in the sand?

We've done work with one of the largest media companies in the world who wanted to use Google maps in a traffic app. They could not get a deal done because Google would not commit to not placing ads on the maps. They were more then happy to pay for the map data but having 3rd party location ads were a non-starter.

So yes Google will say no to cash for the rights to their map data (though maybe not a "truck load") if they don't think the deal supports their business. Google's not in the maps business - they're in the ads business. I can very much see Google sticking their heels in the ground on a few "minor" points until Apple walked away.

The large media company you worked for is not in the same position as Apple. Apple has right now one of the most popular platforms ever created and the default search engine on their browser is Google Search, an engine that does serve ads and that I'm sure it brings a lot of revenue to Google. And it's not like there aren't alternatives to Google available. They could go with Bing, at least for devices activated in the US (Bing is pretty shitty internationally). I'm sure Google doesn't want that.

You cannot compare the leverage that Apple has over Google with any other company (although this works both ways, because Google's services are the best in their domain and any switch is likely to piss people off).

And really, I'm not blaming Apple for trying to set themselves free from third-party dependencies. I wouldn't blame them if they created their own search engine either - however considering their leverage and their resources, they should have waited until their Maps app was good enough.

GMaps on iOS was already far behind the Android version and they released a replacement that's worse than GMaps on iOS. At least if it offered something worthwhile over GMaps, like being capable of working offline. But alas, it is worse in every possible way, with some exceptions like some places in China where Google had difficulty acquiring data.

And I'm sure it will improve and be better in some ways than GMaps. But this version deployed right now is worse and they could have delayed it. It's not a strategy that can be said to be in the user's interests, which is a pity because that's one thing I always loved about Apple - the ability to say no to crap because user experience is more important than other gains they might have.

It's all about truckloads of cash. But I can easily see a situation where Google forecasted that trying to get a few percentage points of iPhone users to switch to Android was more profitable in the long term than the licensing revenue they would get from Apple or advertising revenues from a standalone app..

You are reasonably certain now, based on what information? This really is a funny case study on how rumors develop on the internet...

Based on three things:

1) Various facts with regard to AMaps quality (fit and finish) vs GMaps quality. Knowledge of licensing terms [1] and the fact that 2012 is 5 years after 2007 (introduction of the iPhone [2]).

2) Interviews with Google executives over the various Android lawsuits and tweets from Andy Rubin amongst others.

3) The "make money now" mantra that has swept through Google cancelling dozens of projects and creating pricing models for the ones that remain (AppEngine, Maps, Etc.)

So like any good investigator one looks at what is known, and what is not known, and trys to come up with a series of steps that would lead to the observed outcome (in this case crappy maps on the iPhone). You can classify those in the range from "more likely" to "less likely".

So for example a theory that "Google Maps are no longer on the iPhone because Apple forgot to renew their license." would seem improbable, putting together something as complex as the iPhone doesn't allow for 'forgetting' such things. A theory that "Apple couldn't get a license" also fails the sniff test as Google clearly licenses things to folks all the time, they have a revenue model for that and as a publicly traded company they generally don't "not take revenue" when its possible to do so effectively. So if you get to the point in your reasoning that Apple could get a license if they wanted to, and Google could give them that license if they wanted to. Then you are left looking at a failed negotiation. I've participated in both successful and unsuccessful negotiations like these, its like many things where the details or scale may be different but the basic steps share a lot of similarities.

That leaves us speculating on how the negotiations failed.

Given how badly the AMaps product (as shipped) is in comparison to the GMaps product, clearly Google was in a fairly strong negotiating position. Given Apple's free cash flow and assets (remember they made more profit last quarter than Google made in all revenue) they clearly could afford to pay a pretty arbitrary price. The simplest answer (which for me makes it the most likely) is that Apple was unwilling to meet the terms Google set for licensing.

So you (Tichy) have posed variations on this question to a number of people on a number of threads here but I've yet to see any reasoning you might have for why you don't believe this is the case. I realize it is implied by the snark but not actually expressed as a dissenting opinion. I'd love to hear your reasoning on it if you are free to share it. I note in a sister comment you mention 'revoke' the license, I don't think Google did any such thing, I believe the license expired and it was up for renewal, it was the renewal that failed to materialize.

[1] "Our license to include the YouTube app in iOS has ended, customers can use YouTube in the Safari browser and Google is working on a new YouTube app to be on the App Store," explains Apple in a brief statement to The Verge. -- http://www.maclife.com/article/news/apple_ios_youtube_licens...

[2] "iPhone also includes Google Maps, featuring Google’s groundbreaking maps service and iPhone’s amazing maps application, offering the best maps experience by far on any pocket device. Users can view maps, satellite images, traffic information and get directions, all from iPhone’s remarkable and easy-to-use touch interface. " -- https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-t...

Well just as you posted that, Verge comes up with this article that proves you wrong. Apple had over one year left on Google Maps contract, but decided to ditch it anyway:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/25/3407614/apple-over-a-year-...

That is an interesting article. Let's pick it apart a bit shall we? I think it supports my conjecture but I'm only sharing my reasoning here, I don't have any skin in the game (I sold my Google stock a long time ago)

Quote 1: "Apple's decision to ship its own mapping system in the iPhone 5 and iOS 6 was made over a year before the company's agreement to use Google Maps expired, according to two independent sources familiar with the matter."

So per Tichy's comment it sounds like Apple says "Ok, we're going to do our own Maps product our agreement with Google expires in a year." If you think about the prep for the June event, and the release cycle for iOS, that puts the decision somewhere early this year right? They talk about this in June but they are deciding this in like the January/February time frame. So lets be generous and say Google's contract with them expires in sometime in 2013. (over a year but less than two years, from Jan/Feb 2012.) They are going to be shipping a new phone in October, they know it will be longer lived than a year, they need to decide this year. (point in my favor that this is brought on, in part by the renewal question). Is there any data point we can use to find out when exactly the license expires? I'm going to guess its the sometime just after the last day you can purchase an Apple device with iOS 5 and Google maps, or the just before they ship an update to iOS 5 which has Apple maps.

Why ship their own product? Quote 2: "Apple apparently felt that the older Google Maps-powered Maps in iOS were falling behind Android — particularly since they didn't have access to turn-by-turn navigation, which Google has shipped on Android phones for several years."

Don't know if this is The Verge talking or Apple of course, but would you agree that Apple was falling behind here? Do you think they even asked the question "What would it take to get the latest version of Maps?" No?

Quote #3 allegedly Eric Schmidt: ""what were we going to do, force them not to change their mind? It's their call."

So this seems to say that Apple could have gone to Google and re-licensed, Google was ready to respond and Apple chose not to. So this puts the decision completely in Apple's court right? Google is available, they have what Apple wants, and Apple decides not to go there.

Quote 4: "Interestingly, Apple either didn't know or didn't expect that consumers would find its new maps to be deficient — when iOS software VP Scott Forstall introduced the new mapping system in June, he called it "beautiful" and "gorgeous" and stressed that "we're doing all the cartography ourselves." The company was forced to adopt a different tone last week as complaints about the maps spread, saying the "new map service is a major initiative and we are just getting started with it." The company also promised "continuously improving" maps, and said that "the more people use it, the better it will get." "

I get that Steve is dead, but 99.99% of the people who ship product are still alive and at Apple. Does anyone believe that Apple really believed this product was competitive? Even slightly? Do you? I get that Scott has to say "It's beeeutiful" at the launch, he doesn't get to write the copy, but who dropped the ball here? Apple CorpCom? Scott? All of QA? Engineering? And when was that ball dropped?

Tech companies don't like paying 'product taxes' (what they call licensing fees to third parties on a per-unit basis), none of them do. But shipping crap isn't the answer and never has been. We talk about execution sometimes, that is the process by which a product is made and launched or a company is run, its how executives get measured. And Apple has been a gold standard here for years. And yet this product launch is about as notable as Roger Federer losing the final set in Wimbledon by double faulting every server for 6 games in a row. There are probably a half dozen different ways Apple could have transitioned to their own maps platform which would have resulted in their users seeing nothing but an improving map experience. That Apple was unable to pull that off in this context is unexplained.

So I don't think I was wrong, and I think The Verge has just proved that. If The Verge is accurate than by now Apple would have less, possibly much less, than a year left on their Maps contract with Google. Since they wouldn't ship without that resolved (otherwise they stop shipping product suddenly, that would be bad for them), the time frame is too short to wait for another iOS release, or the next iPhone refresh, Apple chose not to renew and shipped crap. That is all I've ever said about it.

You can claim, as Tichy does, that they just decided to 'kick Google off' and drop their user experience into the toilet and make themselves the butt of many jokes. There is no evidence to suggest (yet) that Google wasn't willing to re-license their use, which would have avoided that fate.

I don't believe they are so incompetent that they would have willfully shipped that maps product when they had an alternative. As Tichy said even Nokia or Bing would have been better, although given the history with Google I expect that the engineering effort would be minimal staying there.

Its an interesting thing to watch this sort of stuff. I've experienced it from the inside at Sun and at NetApp dealing with CIFS, from the outside a Microsoft/Novell networking customer, and now on my iPad with Apple/Google. The basic structure of these things doesn't change all that much.

"Google Maps VP Brian McClendon has also repeatedly said he's committed to offering Google Maps on all platforms, indicating that an iOS app will eventually appear."

Interesting to see Gruber's take:

"But if the old agreement between Apple and Google expired in the first half of 2013 (which, again, my own sources familiar with the matter agree to be the case), that means the deal was set to expire halfway through the expected year-long life cycle for iOS 6."

http://daringfireball.net/2012/09/timing_of_apples_map_switc...

I'd be careful with that, Google can submit an App but it will only appear on iOS when Apple says it can. If you recall there was very long and protracted battle with Google Voice.

My reasoning is simple: everything Google does has the goal of collecting more data. Therefore they are interested in having maps on the iPhone. The iPhone being popular as it is, not collecting data from it's users is a huge black data hole. I think Apple already kicked the Google search as default (another thing that might factor into your sleuthing?)? If they were sure that Apple would always stick with Google search and maps, they wouldn't need Android (which they give away for free). They give away Android for free, so they are not really that interested in shipping lots of Android phones - it is the same to them if an Android phone ships or an iPhone with Google search and maps. Of course since Apple wants to get away from Google, Google needs Android to stay relevant in mobile search.

It's true, they probably won't give maps for free (I remember Nokia paid several billion dollars for their maps, so these things are not cheap), but I suspect ads on the device would have been sufficient (plus the data that comes with it - movement patterns as well as reactivity to ads). Why would they need more? iPhone users could always check Google Maps in the browser (ad supported), why would it cost more to show the maps in a nice app?

Do you actually think Google upped the price? Apple had announced quite a while ago that they want to kick Google maps, iirc. I can see why they are unhappy, they miss the data, the ad revenue and the freedom to add features at will. So it seems to me Google had all reasons to be content with the status quo, whereas Apple had all reasons to kick the maps. If they upped the price, how come Google Maps are still available on iOS 5? That must hurt Apple a lot, given that there are already millions of iOS 5 devices around. (I think GMaps are still available on iOS 5 because a friend of mine downgraded to iOS 5 to get the maps back).

I find it funny that you describe your approach as "what a good inspector would do". I think it is very easy to find arguments or data points to support something your want to believe. In my opinion a good inspector should always doubt everything. But you have me there - of course I can not prove anything either.

It's just funny how suddenly it is all Google's fault in the eye of the Apple fans. Naturally Apple can never go wrong, case closed. Apple has never shown any signs of hubris before.

Also, btw, while Apple is apparently richer than Google, I don't think Google needs cash that badly. What they need is data and a handhold on devices to secure their future. Obviously once Apple has established their own maps, Google maps are never coming back to the iPhone. So to gamble that away doesn't make sense at all.

And another point: what about Bing maps, or Nokia maps? Why didn't Apple partner with them if all they want is some good maps?

Maybe this will be clarified in time, for now people believe what they want to believe. I find it highly unlikely that Google would have revoked the maps license for the iPhone.

I think Apple already kicked Google search in earlier iterations of iOS? They simply want to get rid of Google stuff.

One thing of note is that none of the new feature points in iOS6 Maps are supported by the public Google Maps APIs. For Google to not allow the general public access to that data may be very well be the same reason that keeps them from not offering the data to Apple, whatever reason that may be.

But without that data, Apple's hands were tied to do anything new with the software. Starting new may have been the only way they saw to restore innovation to the application (or, at very least, catch up to the competition). Information accuracy aside, I find the new Maps app to be a vast improvement over the previous version.

It is all just conjecture at this point, of course, but I find it hard to believe that Apple would walk away if all of the terms were favourable just because it is Google.