Re: resolve the problem, @SuccessCase
@Ledswinger. I didn't make that remark off the cuff. You're making the assumption Apple wanted to do their own maps app as distinct from wanting to avoid being forced to incorporate advertising in a maps app from Google.
The evidence goes against that.
A few points:
- The contract with Google for maps data supply was up for renewal, so Google could change the terms.
- Google were withholding access to the turn-by-turn directions API from Apple (Apple developed and maintained the maps app, though of course it was little more than a window onto the Google app)
- Google were withholding access to vector based maps, which are much higher performance (and consume less bandwidth - so this was for sure a political point not based on costs)
- Google started charging an arm and a leg for access to the volume mapping API (there was an outcry at the time from their established web customers, and they later reduced the newly introduced wholesale charges by an order of magnitude
Apple's position was that Google themselves wanted to provide maps to iOS and that therefore they were not going to a) pay for the maps data for what is a free app , b) be forced to take adverts (there is of course no way Apple would settle for such in a stock iOS app). In this context both parties were negotiating a position and both parties were free to horse-trade and or be aggressive in their approach. It is clear however Apple saying "we'll build our own" is not a decision they made in a vacuum or necessarily because they wanted to be in the mapping business per-se. Divining the motives of men (or corporations) is an idle task.
In the event Google have produce the maps app for iOS on the terms Apple were, reportedly, requesting in the first instance (e.g. not charging for wholesale data access, incorporating vector maps, and not incorporating adverts), so it could be said the evidence points to Google playing politics equally, if not more than Apple (though as said, divining motivations is an idle task).
Lastly Scott Forstall was the senior executive fully in charge of the maps project. It was IMHO appropriate he should have apologised for the debacle surrounding the low quality of the release. However responsibility was not shirked by other management, because, in the event, since Mr Forstall felt disinclined to apologise for the debacle, Tim Cook did what any man next up the tree should do and apologised unequivocally himself. I don't feel Forstall, reportedly sticking two metaphorical fingers up at Cook, and leaving the apology to his boss quite qualifies him as a poor unfortunate collared to be scapegoat. A scapegoat has no reason to feel the stab of the dagger on the sacrificial altar. Forstall would have avoided the altar altogether if he had stepped up for what, given his position, a quite reasonable mea-culpa.
Not sure I can be wrong on this any more than you, since I think it is a matter of opinion. However hopefully you now see I don't just express my opinions thoughtlessly.