Comment by davyjones
11 years ago
> Google does everything in-house. The company gets Maps and all of its cloud services basically for free.
This statement is utterly false. In-house does not mean free.
11 years ago
> Google does everything in-house. The company gets Maps and all of its cloud services basically for free.
This statement is utterly false. In-house does not mean free.
Exactly. Google's mapping data is a legitimate competitive advantage, and there is no reason anyone else forking android should be entitled to it.
The article in no way says this is illegitimate, it is listed as an extra barrier that a competitor would have to cross.
Maybe not explicitly, but it was stated in the context of a critical article about Google's betrayal of openness, so we could at least be forgiven for interpreting it in that light. It's not a stretch to assume it was meant as a criticism.
All of its Maps data and many of its APIs already existed for Google Maps on the desktop. Within the mobile space, and relative to a mobile-only competitor, Google's access to that data is effectively free.
Map data for mobile isn't free even for Google. Google buys licenses to the data from a few map data providers, and as there was effectively a duopoly in global map data, those licenses have very strict terms of use. To use that data for e.g. real-time navigation assistance in mobile requires a different, much more expensive licenses.
Good point, thanks for the correction.
You mean it has a low marginal cost. However, it required a huge capital investment to create, from which they are now rightfully reaping the benefits.
I'm certainly not saying they are wrong to leverage that asset. I don't think the point is about right or wrong as regards Google's action, but simply the extra barrier this represents for a competitor.
Close enough to free.