11–19 of 19 posts
Big companies are like the Star Trek Borg they acquire companies to meld whatever tech they can use. I also suspect that getting rid of a competitor and acquiring its user base is always a plus for the acquirer. Generally speaking, that's how they work so the demise of Waze is not a surprise. Google Maps will always be their primary product.
Big companies are like the Star Trek Borg they acquire companies to meld whatever tech they can use. I also suspect that getting rid of a competitor and acquiring its user base is always a plus for the acquirer. Generally speaking, that's how they work so the demise of Waze is not a surprise. Google Maps will always be their primary product.
>I also suspect that getting rid of a competitor and acquiring its user base is always a plus for the acquirer. That's surely their thinking, but I believe that thinking is flawed: doing this brings a big risk of losing that userbase to a different competitor if the acquisition isn't handled to the userbase's liking. In this case, how many users are they losing to Apple Maps, for instance?
If they're integrating Waze's data into GMaps, then that number might be far lower than you think. Waze covers more countries than Apple Maps does, and they do so with more accuracy than GMaps.
For example, I went on vacation to Belize some time ago. Apple Maps simply didn't offer the option for directions. Google Maps didn't understand that driving in the wrong direction is something you're not supposed to do. Meanwhile, Waze effortlessly led me to my destination.
Apple Maps is high-quality, but that means nothing if it isn't offered where you live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I also suspect that getting rid of a competitor and acquiring its user base is always a plus for the acquirer. That's surely their thinking, but I believe that thinking is flawed: doing this brings a big risk of losing that userbase to a different competitor if the acquisition isn't handled to the userbase's liking. In this case, how many users are they losing to Apple Maps, for instance?
>In this case, how many users are they losing to Apple Maps, for instance? If they're integrating Waze's data into GMaps, then that number might be far lower than you think. Waze covers more countries than Apple Maps does, and they do so with more accuracy than GMaps. For example, I went on vacation to Belize some time ago. Apple Maps simply didn't offer the option for directions. Google Maps didn't understand that d…
Clickbait. Downsizing a product team does not mean killing the offering, only that there are fewer hands required to maintain its ongoing operations while adding new features as the market dictates.
Google can’t kill waze, its where a large part of their traffic congestion data comes from. This data is used on google maps to calculate best routes, but is collected from waze users. No waze users, no data.
I have used Waze for a very long time and would be said to see it go. I took a break from it when it didn’t support CarPlay for a long time and used Apple Maps for awhile which was fine except it lacked being able to submit traffic data. Does Apple or Google allow that now? Can you still report cops on the road?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I also suspect that getting rid of a competitor and acquiring its user base is always a plus for the acquirer. That's surely their thinking, but I believe that thinking is flawed: doing this brings a big risk of losing that userbase to a different competitor if the acquisition isn't handled to the userbase's liking. In this case, how many users are they losing to Apple Maps, for instance?
>In this case, how many users are they losing to Apple Maps, for instance? If they're integrating Waze's data into GMaps, then that number might be far lower than you think. Waze covers more countries than Apple Maps does, and they do so with more accuracy than GMaps. For example, I went on vacation to Belize some time ago. Apple Maps simply didn't offer the option for directions. Google Maps didn't understand that d…