I think the maps are only part of the deal here, and google is failing on the most important aspect: actually planning a useful route. Have not used the new app. but the current version of Google maps on my BB has a routing algorithm which simply sucks eggs...
I can't tell you how many times I've tried to use the directions Google provided on my BB, only to revert to my TomTom. The latter generally provides better directions and has blazingly fast recalcs when I veer off the designated route.
(More recently I've discovered Goviko, free-ish, which works better than my TomTom because it will take live delays ahead into account when planning my trip, but sucks the life out of my BB faster than a ... well you know.)
And markets for horses, horse food, horse-drawn carriages, large barns, and stable boys too. Just because it's a good thing doesn't mean it's not dramatic or even traumatic.
Can we please stop this "analogy?" As someone living in a area full of small horse farms, it makes me want to scream every time I see it :-)
Cars didn't kill the equine industry: they just made it more profitable since horses went from being commodities to companion animals and, to some people, luxury items.
Garmin competitor TomTom NV, a Dutch company, on Wednesday reported a 15 percent drop in revenue and a 48 percent plunge in earnings for the third quarter compared to the same quarter of 2008. However, earnings rose 42 percent compared to the second quarter.
Let's not ignore the possibility that todays drop in Tomtom's stock price (and by extension, Garmin's) might had something to do with an earnings drop.
The real key here is Google's efficiency and innovation. They're not simply providing free data for the masses to consume, making nothing off of it and paying to obtain it (as they must, to map the highways and byways of the US).
At it's heart, Google is an advertising company which creates products that use data to place other companies in the eyes of those who use them.
TomTom and Garmin may offer an equivalent (or better) experience for a price, but Google offers an excellent experience for free, the only cost being a little inadvertent exposure to advertisements.
It wouldn't be inconceivable for another company to more efficiently display data and create a better experience for consumers, but profit through advertisements as Google does. Companies do this already. There simply wasn't another model in the mapping industry that could compete. Yet.
I would argue that the fact that Google causes such drastic, irreversible shifts in business practices is a good thing. Simply put, Google isn't raising the bar - it's setting a higher baseline for consumer-level performance. Forcing better service and performance across the information industry can only be advantageous in the long run.
With apologies to Alfred North Whitehead, perhaps it should be: Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without paying for them.
The money has to come from somewhere. In the case of Google search it is still you, just by the circuitous route of via the companies that buy advertising, who in turn you buy their products and services (the difference between this and a conventional business is that Google works for said companies, not for you, and that's not necessarily a good thing).
Very good point. Let's split the difference; Google has made something significantly cheaper than it was before, (which is a good thing), and moved it to an advertising model, (which is a mixed blessing).
We only have enough data for your point 2 - certainly an Android handset costs more than a typical GPS unit. Even if you get the handset "free" from the telco it's really paid for through your contract.
Mmmm. I wasn't referring to the hardware. I meant that they had made it cheaper to gather, process, store, and use location information. A guess, but considering how good they are at some aspects of efficiency, a reasonable one.
And while a Android handset costs more than a GPS unit, by combining it with other functions, you open up the potential for synergy, (Ugh. Why did the MBAs have to go an ruin so many good words), between applications.
This article was written ten years ago, about Microsoft. At that time, the hallowed brands were the likes of Borland and Corel. Sure, Google is dominant in search and advertising, but things have a way of changing in this industry. It seems that the when a company comes to dominate a category, the category begins to lose relevance.
Microsoft's dominance of desktop computing comes to mind. They controlled the platform. Then, the applications and development tools. Eventually, no one entered the desktop application market without dealing directly with Redmond.
Google's not going anywhere soon, but rest assured - the next Google is being developed (or thought about) right now.
Google is fundamentally changing the business model of many companies. This is a great example. To Google this is all data, and their goal is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
So these companies should ask themselves: what are they offering? A service, or data?
That said, the stock market has overreacted. Nothing Google has done has affected the earnings of any of these companies. Yet. You all have a decent chance of pocketing a 20% gain if you buy now, because that fear got priced into the stock today.
A little surprised that the stock market should fall down so much. After all, how many phones actually run on Android. If this was an iPhone app, that would have meant a lot more "danger" for the GPS manufacturers.
I'm much more surprised that the stock holders saw this as news. Something like this coming along should have been beyond obvious as soon as the iPhone launched - with more memory, a faster processor, and a higher quality screen than those crappy TomToms.
You'd be amazed how much isn't obvious. Your insticts on the technical chess game are probably much better than most on wall st. Read the tech analysis in a top notch investment rag like Barrons. You'll be shocked.
I meant the general value their company - the value of the specialized GPS widget hardware, the relationships with manufacturers, etc. all goes to 0 once a general purpose device which can provide a better experience comes out.
I think it was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but investors do realize that the end won't be tomorrow for GPS makers, but it will certainly be in the next few years as new android sets come out.
I respectfully disagree. It is not a knee jerk reaction. The writing is on the wall for many single use 'gadgets': gps, point & shoot cameras, calculators, etc. It is not google per ce, but powerful pocket computers (iPhone, Android, etc.) that is driving the change. There will always be a need for niche single use gadgets, but for the mass market the multi-purpose pocket computer will dominate.
It is a knee-jerk reaction because Garmin presumably is going to react and may even get into the Android game themselves. It's too soon to write them off.
Stock prices should equal the future discounted stream of a firm's cash flow. A free option for the sole product that you produce will certainly lower the long-term prospects of profitability.
EDIT: Google is a new predator and the other insects have to adapt or be eaten alive. In the end we get a better more resilient breed of insects. No more lazy insects.
EDIT: It's good 'cause it forces companies to be more useful and less annoying (if they were annoying).
I can't tell you how many times I've tried to use the directions Google provided on my BB, only to revert to my TomTom. The latter generally provides better directions and has blazingly fast recalcs when I veer off the designated route.
(More recently I've discovered Goviko, free-ish, which works better than my TomTom because it will take live delays ahead into account when planning my trip, but sucks the life out of my BB faster than a ... well you know.)