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!
While 97% of insurers say that insurance fraud has increased or remained the same in the past two years, most of those companies report benefits from anti-fraud technology in limiting the impact of fraud, including higher quality referrals, the ability to uncover organized fraud, and improve efficiency for investigators.