Thanks Noreen. Your note and a mention in Wikipedia are clsoe to what I was thinking (The wikipedia description below noted that iPhone was a minority in market share, but Apple has the largest share of profits vis smartphone).
Research firm IDC says Google-developed Android is now on three-quarters of all smartphones worldwide, while Apple's closed software-hardware ecosystem relegates the platform to a distant second-place with 14.9 percent of the mobile market.
Big ego plus data can be a toxic combination. I think to Apple's credit they were trying to take a strategic advantage over data that it assumed was "theirs" - data generated through the use of its smartphone, data that would benefit their customers ultimated, data that would have given Google, a smartphone competitor, an advantage.
Moreover Google has a lead in market share by OS (Need to verify how Apple and Google stack up - there's a difference between sales numbers and by OS because of the Android variations but I am not recalling it). The simple point is that Google's share would have been enhanced by its usage of the data to refine its map app. It was a tempting, well, apple that Apple could not ignore, but should have found a better way than to give a sub-beta product to customers. The whole scenario really fascinates me because of the scale of these two companies and how easy data (plus the means to execute) can tempt a company to do something that appear strategic but can backfire with ease.
Hi Pierre, we often hear about the challenge of big-data, and certainly location data for mapping falls into that category. But when I think about Apple's mapping fiasco I tend to think of the problem as more of big-ego then big-data!
It may be impossible to predict the perfect bracket, but these academics have managed to predict perfectly the "at large" bids that were included in the March Madness NCAA college basketball tournament this year and with 96% accuracy over the last 6 years.