Apple buys map service to compete with Google?

(Credit: Screenshot by Steven Musil/CNET)

We may now have a better idea of why Apple objects to Google Latitude.

It appears that Apple has purchased PlaceBase, a company that produced a maps API called Pushpin and offered a mapping service much like Google Maps. The evidence, dug up by ComputerWorld's Seth Weintraub, first appeared in the form of a tweet in July by Fred Lalonde, the founder of Openspaces.org, a company that used PlaceBase's software, stating that Apple had purchased PlaceBase:

Apple bought PlaceBase - all hush hush. Pushpin site taken offline. Hyperlocal iPhone?

The next clue apparently came from Jaron Waldman, PlaceBase's founder and CEO. His LinkedIn page now lists PlaceBase under his "past" experience and now lists his current occupation as a member of Apple's "GEO Team." In addition, Placebase.com and Pushpin.com have been taken down.

All this leads one to believe that Apple has snapped up PlaceBase. However, Apple representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Not long after Apple's reported purchase of PlaceBase in July, Google released a version of its Latitude mobile application for the iPhone. But Apple, curiously, decreed that it be a Web-based app and not a native iPhone app, which raised some eyebrows.

The application, which allows you to show your location on a map so that friends may find you, works much the same way as on other platforms like Android, Symbian, BlackBerry, and Windows Mobile. The big exception for the iPhone version is that you have to use the service in the Safari Web browser.

At the time, Google explained the matter this way: "After we developed a Latitude application for the iPhone, Apple requested we release Latitude as a Web application in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone, which uses Google to serve maps tiles."

Apple's rationale apparently was that people would get confused between a Google Maps app and a Google Latitude app. The explanation seemed a bit baffling, since customer confusion didn't seem to be a concern when Apple approved at least 13 To-Do List applications and 30 streaming music apps.

However, the apparent purchase of PlaceBase seems to explain why Apple would place such restrictions on Google--Apple has a similar feature coming for the iPhone that it doesn't want competition for.

The Google Latitude episode is just the latest spat between the two companies. The same month that Apple said no to Google Latitude, Apple rejected the Google Voice application from its App Store, according to a letter Google sent to the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is investigating the matter and has requested information from Apple, Google, and Apple iPhone partner AT&T.

A few days after news of the FCC investigation broke, Apple announced that Google CEO Eric Schmidt would be resigning from its board of directors. Schmidt, who had served on Apple's board for exactly three years, had said in July that he was planning to discuss the future of his role on Apple's board given the advent of Chrome OS, an operating system that expanded the fields in which the two companies compete.

[kool_skatkat]

With Google moving into OS, Browser market... Apple needs their own Map tool. To empower developer to do more with maps... CoreMaps next?

[kool_skatkat]

With Google moving into OS, Browser market... Apple needs their own Map tool. To empower developer to do more with maps... CoreMaps next?

[alan_06]

It doesn't matter if it's a small or big company. You're always at their mercy when doing business with Apple I guess? Why they're protecting their product so much? Why not have both the maps tool and leave it to the user to decide?
Weird, Google - who makes money from free open source softwares and Apple, making money from overpriced overcautious less featured products (lol they released MMS feature recently. First of it's kind in phone!) I don't think Google-Apple will ever have a smooth B2B relationship.

[ckh1272]

@alan_06-I also question some of Apple's practices, but your ignorance regarding MMS shows. That was all AT&T, but hey, if it makes you feel better to blame Apple.

[cougar888]

@ckh1272

Could you please explain why you think that the lack of MMS was a because of AT&T?

I had an AT&T phone 5 years ago and it had MMS on it. My brother has one now that has MMS. The only people I knew of on AT&T's network that didn't have MMS were those with the iPhone.

[shellcodes_coder]

Ya I agree with you. But that's the world's most advanced MMS feature introduced in iPhone, that's why it took them ages.

[qwerty-berty]

@cougar888

Reading your post carefully, I believe you've answered your own question ;)

I live outside of the US and MMS has been available for the iPhone for a while. Others may correct me, but I believe the official stance from AT&T is that the network hasn't been able to support the expected amount of traffic until now.

For the life of me I can't think of a decent business reason why Apple would want to deliberately disable this feature, or AT&T wouldn't want to rake in the cash from these messages, so I'm inclined to believe them for once.

[cougar888]

@querty-berty

Thanks for the response, but there are a few things that I don't buy.

Why can't AT&T handle the amount of MMS messages? It is not like no one owned a phone until the iPhone so any previous customer would have been using the MMS feature already. With the iPhone, I'm sure the demand on data has skyrocketed, but an MMS will have way less data than a standard web page, so unless there were restrictions on how many pages you could visit, it don't think that capacity was an issue.

Here is why I believe that it was Apple's decision.

1. Why wouldn't AT&T want the cash? Their whole purpose as a carrier is to get as much traffic as possible to pull in the bucks.
2. By delaying the MMS feature, Apple was able to keep customers eagerly awaiting any news from Apple about it and therefore reading more and more about Apple products. It gave Apple something to call a "cool new feature" in their next version and add to the hype. The previous versions of the iPhone were all capable of sending MMS messages, but it had to be through the browser using email and going through the SMS/MMS gateways of carriers.

[ittesi259]

@cougar,

AT&T's inability to handle the explosion of network data due to the iPhone is well documented if you spend 5 seconds searching. Apple and AT&T both explained that was the reason (since the US was the absolute last to get MMS on the iPhone). Also, AT&T has proven inept at network stability with a large concentration of iPhones....case in point was that 2009 SXSW conference when everything went to hell until AT&T brought in some portable cell towers to increase it.

But hey, with any other phone on their network I guess they wouldn't have had to do that...

[veggiedude--2008]

Many nations had MMS on the iPhone, long before the US recently adopted it. And it was AT&T that set the date for MMS, not Apple.

[cougar888]

Ok.

I'll accept those answers, sorry for my ignorance.

I find it stupid on the part of AT&T and a little ridiculous that they can't handle it (Glad I'm on T-Mobile).

[ulm_warhawks2008]

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that MMS was not introduced on the original iPhone. We later find out that it susposely the radio wasn't compatible, but I have heard several user say their jailbreak IPhones on T-mobile and it's sending pics and videos.When I originally purchased my iPhone I was told by an Apple rep that Apple thought MMS was ab outdated featured; therefore, they thought sending pics & etc was the right option for the phone. So seems to me the original blame is on Apple for not including it on the phone in the beginning. At thar time it was no network issues with too many iPhone users or anything. I do see some fault in AT&T for delaying the launch of MMS when Apple finally decide include it on the iPhone, but this was for upgrades to the network to ensure it would work properly. Since it's launch I haven't experienced any problems so maybe it was worth the delay. So maybe it's true good things come to those who wait.

[pjhenry1216]

Why is Apple so anti-competitive? If there products are so great, why worry? If any other company did this (god forbid it was MS), so many people would be complaining. Yet people will undoubtedly defend Apple here.

[mudphud]

I'm not sure which would lead to harder feelings- denying an app to start with, or accepting the app and then adding the same thing as a core function. From a user perspective, two is better than one, from a developer perspective it's a lot of wasted effort.

[qwerty-berty]

Have you read Apple stories on cnet before?? If not, you don't need to worry: _many_ people will complain about this.

Though I wouldn't call this anti-competitive, this is Apple caught in the act of ... competing. It's the kind of hardass competition that all the big boys engage in. As consumers of a particular kind i.e. obsessive followers of tech, we don't much care for it, but Apple don't do it for our benefit - they do it for their core demographics and as a consequence, their shareholders and ego of the board members.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep a close eye on Apple in this instance, but I am saying weigh up any argument based on its merits, rather than whether or not it is pro or anti Apple.

[Worldbfree]

@ pjhenry1216

Re: MMS, You are half right.. Apple enabled MMS with OS 3.0 and ATT effectively drug their proverbial feet implementing it system wide...

[Macbrewer]

Apple isn't even 1/100th as anti-competitive as Microsoft is. Apple can't afford to block windows users at every turn as Microsoft does. In fact, protecting the monopoly is about the ONLY thing Microsoft does. Imagine if they spent as much energy actually developing software. They might have had an innovation in their history, other than the scroll wheel. Or was that logictech?

[renGek]

@macbrewer
Thats like saying Murder is awful, but stealing candy from a store is ok so lets just look the other way. Nevermind the kid stealing the candy will eventually go for bigger fishes in the sea. Apple felt like a step child and wanted the world to pay attention to them. So you can't expect to have the fame and not the consequences.

[Sourdust]

How is Apple being anti-competitive? They acquired a company and we have no idea what they're going to do with it. Last time I looked Google maps is still on the iPod Touch/iPhone.

For all we know their implementation of a mapping app for the iPhone might be better than Google's. Let's wait until they do something before we start crying about how horrible it is..

[ekholbrook]

Curious at what point companies will start to sue Apple for unfair practices much like companies or countries seem to always suing Microsoft for such things about not including their browser in Windows.

When Apple starts to say, "hmm.. no, we don't want that App because we have our own," isn't this exactly what people get all hot and humid about from Microsoft? Why does Apple get away with it?

[qwerty-berty]

From a consumer point of view the sad truth is that this sort of lock-in is perfectly legal, whether it's Nintendo controlling access to their wii development kits, Sony with their universal media disk, or Microsoft only supporting certain file formats with their office suite.

The point at which one company can pursue a grievance against another is when that competitor becomes a monopoly, i.e. there is no rival app store, no competing games platform or media format or office suite. That's why for example Microsoft and Intel have been roundly slapped and must play to a different set of rules in the markets where they were convicted of abusing their monopolies.

So yes we all suffer from the sidelines, but at least let's not feign ignorance and pretend to be virgins of the business world.

[freemarket--2008]

For the millionth time MS is a monopoly, Apple is not. Repeat after me: MS is a monopoly...

Besides, Google is in direct competition with it's Android and Chrome OS, so why should Apple cut them any slack?

[Perry_Clease]

"by freemarket--2008 October 1, 2009 6:29 AM PDT
For the millionth time MS is a monopoly, Apple is not. "

Well not quite true. Apple does have a monopoly on the OS market that is not clunky and crude, it has a monopoly on elegant and well designed products. However, having a monopoly is not necessarily illegal, how you get there and how you maintain it may be. :)

[ittesi259]

The difference here was that MS was found to be using their position to intentionally run out competition (e-mails, memos, conversations, etc.) If killing competitors is what happens by the natural life of the market so be it, if its because you are gaming the system, thats illegal. There is no proof Apple is doing that, particularly because they allowed Google's App, just not as a Core app.

[veggiedude--2008]

You ask the question because you do not understand the concept of what a Monopoly is. Let me simplify things and suggest that Microsoft can do whatever they want with XBox. Why? Because they own it. You will never hear anyone complain about MS practices on the XBox platform. Similarly, you'll never hear anyone complain about MS practices on the Zune.

Microsoft do NOT own your PC because it was made by another company. For MS to dictate terms and policy regarding pc's made by others is a monopolistic act. Apple does not do that.

[Synthmeister]

MS is a convicted monopolist because is used it's OS monopoly to force out Netscape. Apple does not have a 90% monopoly position in any market. Apple might have a dominant position in certain areas but it does not force you to use their solutions. Virtually all music in the iTMS can be transfered to other devices now. I can delete Safari and iTunes at any time and it will not affect the rest of the OS. RIM uses the freely available hooks to sync iTunes music with BBs. Obviously, iPods use iTunes, that's the software that Apple created to make it all work. Just like you can't swap out software on your DVD player.

Apple learned the hard way not to depend on anyone else for strategic parts of their ecosystem.

[cary1]

@Perry_Clease

"Apple does have a monopoly on the OS market that is not clunky and crude" No. That would be Microsoft

[renGek]

Well if you say that MS is a monopoly because it dominated the windows market and every windows browser has to play by its rule then you pretty much are saying the same thing about apple. Apple dominates the apple maket and even worse they dominate the apple hardware market. Are they now not doing the same thing on the iphone. They can force a company out of their app store. In fact its even more obstructive than the case with netscape. MS made netscape bleed over time with incompatibilities whereas apple can outright block you from access.

So if you think MS is a monopoly, don't turn the other check for apple. Thats a convenient excuse.

[qwerty-berty]

@rengeek

Of course Apple dominate the Apple market - I put them at 100% ;) but then again McDonalds hamburgers dominate the McDonalds hamburger market and BurgerKing dominate the BurgerKing market. The point is there is more than one market I can go to in order to get my burger from, or buy my smartphone. In fact judging by this link I have 87% of non-Apple smartphone goodness to choose from if I get tired of iPhones:

http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/13/iphone-market-share-grew-375-in-q2/

I'm not saying you don't have any valid criticisms, but saying Apple is a monopoly isn't one of them.

[richard993]

Microsoft does not prevent anyone from developing on their platform. You can deploy any application on a Windows Mobile device. And even if you look at their certification program, you can see many competing apps being certified to run for Windows. So no, Microsoft is not the same as Apple in this case... such a comparison is not possible because they are completely different platforms in terms of how they operate. Apple was able to get away from anti-competitive practices before, but now that their devices are becoming more mainstream (I'm not saying that they have 90% marketshare but what I am saying is that there are tens of millions of devices out there now), that it warrants further investigation and perhaps penalties being applied where Apple does not approve applications that either compete with their own (whether current or future planned apps) or does not approve applications that offer similar functionality to their own. It's like Microsoft preventing Firefox from being installed on the Windows platform. Just imagine how many eyebrows that would raise!

[Mark_Anderson]

In the meantime Nokia purchased Navteq, offer Ovi Maps and still let you use Google Maps or anythign else you want for that matter.

Not sure why Apple would be any different here unless they're looking to spectacularly self destruct again.

[shellcodes_coder]

"self destruct again", oct 22 an atom bomb will be thrown in Cupertino, CrApple inc :)

[cvaldes1831]

@shellcodes_coder:

Stop your blatant trolling.

As an AAPL shareholder over the past five years, I assure you that they can continue to "spectacularly self-destruct."

MSFT (I'm also a shareholder) has tracked the S&P 500 over the past five years. GOOG? +250% (Yup, I own that too.) AAPL? +1000%

If anything, Microsoft's board of directors should fire Ballmer and find someone with real leadership capabilities and vision. He was a great hatchet man for Billy, but now he's just an oft-wrong loudmouth with no understanding of increasing Microsoft's shareholder value.

[Mark_Anderson]

@cvaldes

Or MS have reached market saturation and Google and Apple haven't.

[srminton]

I think you're all missing the point. The reason MSFT gets so much scrutiny for its uncompetitive practices (and more recently, Google) is because it has a virtual monopoly of the PC OS market. It's very hard, especially for business users, to choose not to use MSFT Windows. That's the only role of legislators, to prevent a monopoly from abusing its position. For all of its success, Apple does not have anything even close to a monopoly of the mobile phone or even the smartphone market. If you don't like what they're doing, it's very easy to use a Blackberry or Android phone or even a Windows Mobile phone instead, etc. If the iPhone had a 90% share of the market (or even less than that), you can bet your bottom dollar they would get exactly the same kind of scrutiny as MSFT does. There's no pro-Apple conspiracy going on here; it's all just about the numbers. Love it or hate them, the laws are basically working as they were intended - not so over-legislate business practices so that companies like Apple and MSFT are forced to do one thing or another, but only to prevent monopolies from abusing that position in a way which reduces consumer choice and artificially inflates prices etc.

[richard993]

Do not confuse monopolies with anti-competitive practices. Anti-competitive practices are often applied to monopolies and oligopolies, but it does not mean that only monopolies and oligopolies are bound by anti-competitive and anti-trust laws. Every business can be open to investigation and can be sued under these laws. What is important here is the economic significance of such breaches. Companies with significant market power are the ones that are usually targeted by the FCC, DOJ and other federal regulators. For example the Compuware and Viasoft merger was seen as anticompetitive but they were not monopolies and had nowhere near the marketshare that IBM had (see http://news.cnet.com/DOJ-claims-Compuware-merger-anticompetitive/2100-1040_3-232127.html).

So in Apple's case, there is no doubt that their behavior is anti-competitive (hence why they are denying ever rejecting Google's apps), and there is economic significance of their breaches of anti-trust and anti-competitive laws, not just to the US economy but the world economy as a whole. This is the reason why they are being investigated and if they did break the law, they will be found guilty and penalized accordingly. I think that if Apple did reject these apps, they would have robbed the economy of millions of dollars, especially seeing the popularity of Google's apps (such as Google maps). Even if they had only 15% iPhone market penetration with their apps, that would have been considered a significant number and a cause for concern.

So the moral of the story? Watch out! Don't compete by locking out your competitors, compete on innovation, better customer service and better products. This is better for the economy, it is better for jobs and it is better for customers.

[Nocturnal151]

Lets all see how long it takes them to get even close to the functionality of Google Maps. Better get started on their iteration of StreetView now so we might be able to see it by the time google allows you to take a tour of any house in the world!!!! Or provides real time sat images anywhere in the world!!!
Google is so far ahead in this department that I don't think Apple has a chance of competing.

[AJ Pants]

Either let us buy you out or we will put you out of business.

I think that's how they put it to Soundjam back in the day.

[Macbrewer]

Not even close. Cassidy and Green were more than happy to sell soundjam. And Apple didn't have product to make such a threat, they were shopping for sw when they saw the incredible opportunity of the iPod, iTMSs etc... back in the napster days.

[MaggieRed]

In one phrase, SELL YOUR IPHONE AND RID YOURSELF OF THE HARDSHIP ON YOUR LIFE.

This is Apple product, their investment, their engineering, their market, their people, and they have every right to protect that.

Many of you people are what is wrong in this country and this world today.

[cvaldes1831]

You are wrong.

That's why the FCC and other government agencies around the world are monitoring Apple's activities closely (as well as Microsoft, Google, ...). There are laws in place to protect consumers (for example, in some countries, carrier exclusivity for cellphones is illegal).

Apple must abide by the rules of the places where does business and clearly there are many people questioning whether or not they are acting in a legal manner in this country.

[MaggieRed]

Perhaps in your world, but in the real world I am absolutely correct.

In this country (United States of America) it is not illegal to have a exclusive contract.

Yeah you just keeping thinking that nonsense, it keeps the moombats satisfied at night.

No one forced you to buy an Apple product. Until that day happens you still have free choice. Matter of fact let's all invite you to sell your iPhone, cancel your contract and take an Android phone with the carrier of your choice, my goodness you have four carriers to choose from. And let's all hope that you are fabulously happy with your new Android phone. Cya-bye bye.

[glamdring92]

This doesn't surprise me this company is very 'strong' arming other companies. They try to lock your music in if you buy it form them so you can't use it with out getting another apple. I just don't buy apple there stuff is so over-priced and seems to fall apart sooner then any other company

Big time on there Ipods <- Worst MP3/4 player do your self a favor and pick up a different company

[cvaldes1831]

Stop blatantly trolling.

There is no indication that Apple's products "fall apart sooner" although there is plenty of evidence that Apple customers rank at the top of pretty much every single consumer electronics/computing customer satisfaction survey.

[Macbrewer]

Does that 'lock in' mean that Apple protected their so-called 'protected' files more than a regular CD? Because you can burn a regular CD of even the old 'protected' stuff and rip that back into whatever you want. Judging from your comment, I guess you were big into 'playsfersure'.

All the Apple 'protection' really did was to make it a little more time consuming.

You are way off base on the iPod, and apparently amost everyone I see on the streets would agree (with their white earbuds proudly displayed)

[etshea]

You know nothing about Apple. Since last year the music is DRM Free. You can move your music to any device you choose. To say they are over prices is a stretch. I compared the Nano to a Sandisk View. Both are $179. I've owned my MacBook Pro for 2 years now. I shopped Dells site. The closest Dell that compares to MacBook is the M4400. @ $1515 compared to $1699. I couldn't find a Dell wtih Sudden Motion Censors and backlit keyboard. Not to mention all he features of OS X that requires multiple 3rd party apps just to bring it to the same level. And it is 1/2 the size of WIndows 7.

[cvaldes1831]

Apple's rationale that someone might confuse Google Latitude with the iPhone/iPod touch's native Maps app is asinine.

Go ahead and search for "Mapquest" at the App Store. It's there. A free download. Textbook example of duplicate functionality.

[i-arman]

I believe the map application was not in question; rather, a "hyperlocation" application. In Latitude, and presumably in this yet-to-be-named iPhone app, you can set your phone to constantly give your location to the world (with some fuzziness - "Corner of 4th St., Podunk, TX" to "North of Podunk, TX" to "Somewhere in Texas").

I don't really understand why someone would want an app like this, but then again, I don't know why anyone would want an iPhone, either.

[cvaldes1831]

There are already several similar apps (foursquare and Brightkite are two off the top of my head) although you typically have to "check in."

Like you, I don't really understand the TMI "I'm eating a sandwich" Twitter crowd, but that doesn't justify Apple rejecting a native app.

I do believe that you are trolling though. That reduces your credibility.

[biggstuu]

Are we not missing something here? While its in style to bash Apple at every turn here on CNET, let's consider this, Google was little more than a search, advertisement, and research company at the time Google joined Apple's board. Thereafter, Google begins entering competing markets as Apple. Not content to just go complement Apple's offerings, Google, having access to Apple's innards now, creates competing products Phone OS, Chrome based on Webkit (Apple Safari engine that they made open source), and the list goes on and on. So before the masses, yelling for the sake of yelling town hall style, bash Apple for anti-competitive behavior open your eyes and look at Google for anti-partner behavior.

[renGek]

Are you kidding me. You obviously only use the google search bar and thats all you understand of google and use none of their web services or development APIs which have been out there for years. Do you also believe amazon is only for shopping. Might surprise you that they are the a gigantic player of cloud services. fanboy drone.

[hawkeyeaz1]

Apple, here comes the DOJ for a monopoly suite...

[Macbrewer]

Oh, you think they will convict them and then say, "nevermind boys, run along like Microsoft and do as you please."

[Squashman2]

Steve Jobs has always said that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. I am so sick of the two faces that Steve Jobs puts on. There goal of the apps store should be to screen applications for faults and malware. This is definitely going to go to court at some point.

[Macbrewer]

No, what he said, many times, was that Apple was the only one that does both. Really well. So much so that PC nerds are hating them big-time for making them look so ridiculous.

[hypermark]

While I am a strong believer in the inevitability of Apple/Google evolving into Frienemies in the months ahead (see: The Chess Masters: Apple versus Google - http://bit.ly/IHPmW), I think this is more a case of Apple adding geo-locative DNA to their bench and continuing their innovation around the Maps app, which while powered by Google Maps under the hood, is nonetheless developed by Apple in terms of look, feel and supported workflows.

[cary1]

I hope Apple is dragged to court over this. I want App store to be free from Apple's control

[MaggieRed]

Gee I hope that you never create anything on your own and invest your money to build and sell it. We will suit you to death.

Get a clue, it is Apple's store, it is Apple's device, it is Apple's decision to do with it as they see fit.

Again, no one put a gun to your head and made you buy the device.

[Macbrewer]

And I hope that Volkswagen is dragged to court for being the only one to control the Beetle. Get a clue, who else is going to manage the store besides the owner? Government committee?