Editor’s Note: Janice Partyka is principal of JGP Services, a consulting practice. She is GPS World’s editor for wireless, writing a monthly column for the Wireless LBS Insider newsletter. The views expressed are her own.
Hard to believe, we have only now reached the 10th anniversary of Google Maps. As important as digital maps have become, their purpose is much the same as the printed and drawn maps that preceded them. Digital maps emerged in the 1960s with the Census Bureau’s DIME maps. These first digital maps were used for analysis of place-specific data, such as populations within census tracts or cities. Digital maps in turn led to geographic information systems (GIS) for spatial analysis. Though GIS had uses in fields like city planning, the main stimulus for digital maps came in the 1990s with the convergence of the completion of GPS infrastructure, and affordable and portable computers.
Naturally, just knowing where you are doesn’t have huge value, but if that information can be fused with a digital map, which could generate a route to the destination of your choice, or access information on the places that surround you, then you have something. This is why companies like Etak, Tele Atlas and Navteq began the painstaking process of converting satellite images, printed topographic maps and data that could only be observed with one’s eyes (such as street signs, addresses, speed limits, and turn restrictions) into digital form.
One of my projects during the 1990s was to compare the accuracy of competing digital maps. It was a tedious process, entailing two-person driving crews traveling each street. The passenger recorded all relevant information and made periodic readings with a large, costly GPS receiver. At the time, digital maps could only be accessed by complicated GIS programs which restricted their usefulness.
Since then, digital maps have grown in significance due to the advent of smartphones, a growing suite of digital-map-enabled applications, and of course Google Maps. Google has made maps friendlier to developers through its application program interfaces (APIs), which also improved the user experience for scrolling across locations from a map view.
Google has mastered the process of data capture from roadways. Rather than rely on the eyes of people in the field, sensors and cameras collect mapping data. Image-processing software extracts and geo-codes textual data, automating and enhancing map creation. And Google has incorporated overhead and street-level photographic images into maps, adding substantial value.
We will never arrive at having a perfect digital map. The work to keep mapping accurate and give it more context will be ongoing. The next challenge in digital mapping is making it work offline and creating accurate maps of the indoors. These next innovations will not be led by GPS, but by sensors, including beacons. GPS has already done the heavy lifting.
Not so long ago, paper maps were a necessity in many walks of life. Today, they are increasingly a nostalgic novelty, to coin a term.
It’s not difficult to understand why digital maps replaced their paper brethren. Digital maps are more accurate, more adaptable, and most importantly, in an increasingly real-time environment, much faster at making the appropriate updates and amends.
Now, however, digital mapping finds itself at a crossroads. Crowdsourced navigation platforms like OpenStreetMap — affectionately referred to as the “Wikipedia of maps” — are forcing digital maps and the map-building process to evolve significantly. As a result, the future of mapping is now in the hands of location enthusiasts and everyday map users. These people are redefining what a map is, how data is sourced and utilized, and how much it can cost to harness that information both efficiently and effectively. Those of us who have been in this space for years can see the writing on the wall.
Some, however, are eager to write off crowdsourced mapping. Corporate digital map providers, for instance, often refer dismissively to these mapping platforms as “hobby maps.” Nevertheless, they recognize the potential for change such innovation brings and are vulnerable to it.
What potential? Consider the benefits attainable through a crowdsourced approach, in the following sections.
Scalability
As with any process, cost is critical. It is particularly core to building a digital map. Truth be told, the fewer dollars ultimately spent on a map’s construction, the more its long-term operational preservation and, through that, scalability can be ensured. Despite massive innovation in our field, collecting data and creating a usable international digital map is far from cost-effective or efficient today. Candidly, it is one of the clunkier processes in technology, perhaps because it appears compulsory.
Look no further than Google, which spends billions of dollars a year to maintain its platform, yet we marvel at the huge scope of its operation. In truth, it is an effort in dire need of real streamlining. Google, via its recent acquisition of Waze, along with Navteq, TeleAtlas, and the like, leverage laser-enabled cars and high-tech backpacks that are astoundingly inefficient from a pricing standpoint, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nokia’s Map Mobiles, for example, are each outfitted with more than $25,000 of computing equipment.
To think this is sustainable in the long term, on an international level, is wrong. It will inevitably cripple a map’s quality and viability, with corporate providers choosing to limit global detail and upkeep to balance costs.
For crowdsourced map platforms, this problem does not exist. They can and are scaling rapidly, without the exorbitant costs corporate players are used to — and tired of. These costs secondarily manifest in mapping service usage fees for third parties, as well as subscription costs for consumer navigaton products. For either use case (business-to-business or business-to-consumer) crowdsourcing delivers cost benefits traditional players cannot match. Again, this leads directly to scalability, with crowdsourcing the most enduring maps option.
Same time, same place — different look. Crowdsourced OpenStreetMap (left) and Nokia map (right) of central Berlin, Germany. Photo: Oliver Kühn
Detail
Crowdsourced mapping services and platforms like OpenStreetMap are more than just cost-efficienct tools to coax scale. As a crowdsourced dataset built using more than a million dedicated mappers, OpenStreetMap inherently delivers benefits above and beyond those obtained from corporate map providers like TeleAtlas and Navteq.
The most visible benefit is the unrivaled map quality. With an army of contributors, the data dynamically and constantly evolves — just as places do. Locations are rarely fixed or stable. They change and progress over time. No other service or platform can immediately provide developers with the real-time, on-the-ground granularity of a crowdsourced map. Google and the others are trying, but the costs they incur will ultimately be too taxing to maintain detail.
Firsthand influence carries equal weight. Mappers who edit an open-source map have often had personal interactions with a place or locale. They know places intimately, and this makes their contributions detailed, rich, and hyperlocal. More companies and developers are looking to OpenStreetMap for this reason: they want to future-proof their services and products, making sure that they always have the best and most up-to-date data. Only a platform like OpenStreetMap can do this. Corporate map providers are painfully aware of it, too.
Flexibility
Google owns Google Maps, and TeleAtlas owns its TomTom platform. Not surprisingly, this affects what a third party, whether an automotive company or a travel brand, can and cannot do with the service. It is essentially a copyrighted product like an MP3, an audio digital file. So, Google can limit the way you visually render and showcase its platform. Needless to say, this can be suffocating for those interested in building their own unique services. This is what makes crowdsourced mapping such a significant development for those interested in integrating additional data with a digital map. Do with OpenStreetMap what you will, visually or design-wise; there are absolutely no limitations. Every map can be made unique and rendered differently. This also speaks to the flexibility of crowdsourcing more generally.
Beyond design, crowdsourced maps can harness the data to build completely new maps that cater to a specific concept, creating thematic maps for different uses, such as walking, hiking, bicycling, routes for those with disabilities, and more. More traditional digital maps lack this flexibility; it affords possibilities to source non-traditional location data to build even more accurate maps.
The Future — Through Cars
Despite the fact that crowdsourced maps are forcing digital mapping to adopt a more scalable, cost-efficient, detailed, flexible andaltogether long-term approach, digital mapping definitely has room to grow.
One of the most exciting opportunities for crowdsourced maps specifically, and digital maps generally, lies in car user data, which is just coming into its own. Cars are obviously one of the largest travel tools utilized by individuals on a daily basis, and, with the advent of the connected car, the data that they collect via internal/external sensors has grown more nuanced, granular, and specific over the years.
Cars are simply getting smarter, with sensors capable of providing everything from weather conditions to speed-zone information.
Making this information available in the cloud and combining it with data available via crowdsourced mapping platforms produces remarkable possibilities for innovation.
Imagine adding road-condition data, as just one example, to crowdsourced mapping services. By marrying a crowdsourced map with crowdsourced car-sensor data, the map’s overall utility multiplies immeasurably.
To avoid missteps that have positioned companies like Google to spend billions on building a digital mapping service — unsustainable long-term figures — we must always look to embrace that which is cutting-edge. We find that today in crowdsourced mapping platforms, as they enable us to maintain, update, and enrich maps as never before. We must also consider the limitations of the cutting edge and understand how to improve the latest innovation (car-sensor data, and more) before the once cutting edge becomes the next paper map, so to speak. This is key to evolving maps for the better and for the future.
Oliver Kühn has an MBA from the University of Cologne, Germany. He has 10 years of location-based service experience and was Head of Product Management Special Projects at navigation systems specialist Navigon AG (acquired by Garmin). In late 2008, he co-founded skobbler GmbH, being responsible for business development and legal matters. He is also a board member of the OpenStreetMap Foundation.
In a year of ho-hum location deals, or the lack of any, the recent Google purchase of Waze for more than $1 billion is a big one. In fact, readers of GPS World magazine’s LBS Insider would have to go back to the summer of 2007, when TomTom purchased Tele Atlas and Nokia bought Navteq, to find an industry acquisition as big as this one.
The Federal Trade Commission is reviewing Google’s $1.1 billion acquisition of Israel-based mapping startup Waze, according to published reports. The big issue is that while Waze’s revenue was too low to trigger automatic review by the FTC, it may have hundreds of millions of users worldwide.
The fact that Google’s acquisition of Waze has caught the FTC’s attention is not unusual, said Mike Dobson, TeleMapics president, who authors a location industry blog at www.telemapics.com. “Google, in an attempt to speed the acquisition, declared that the assets of Waze based in the United States are worth less than the $70.9 million that requires an antitrust review. Google maintains, and I agree, that the majority of the [intellectual property] for which they were willing to pay $1 billion was created in Israel, where it is currently located, and in that location it continues to be revised and enhanced,” he said.
One of the supposed reasons, which were publicized in media reports, is that the deal with Facebook fell through because the social media giant wanted to relocate the Waze development activities to the U.S. and the Israel-based company declined.
Google’s purchase of Waze ends months of rumors and stops other suitors, including Facebook, Apple and Microsoft, from moving in on the mapping startup. Google has said that its mapping technology will be incorporated into Waze.
The Waze deal may strengthen Google, but won’t be the deciding factor on whether it has an unfair advantage in the [location] market, said Marc Prioleau, president of Prioleau Advisors. “They will have that regardless of Waze. I am not sure the criteria for the FTC, but I think Waze is just a spark to trigger a look at Google’s mapping position overall,” he said. “The FTC will have a hard time making the case that Google dominates the industry when Google can point to market share for Apple Maps, Nokia/Here [through its own sites as well as Bing, Amazon, Facebook and others] and even MapQuest, which stubbornly hangs on to a high market share with the over-50 demographic.”
When it comes down to it, it is all about money. “It appears that the FTC’s preliminary interest in the Google acquisition of Waze is in determining if the U.S.-based assets are worth more than $70.9 million, and whether or not Google’s position regarding the Waze IP being located in Israel is justified,” Dobson said. “Many would argue that a considerable portion of the value of the Waze IP affects consumers in the United States, resides on cell phones of users in the United States, and has a functional impact in the United States beyond the $70.9 million that Google is claiming. Functional impact is a difficult issue, but since Waze generates little income, Google is probably in a good position here.”
Dobson said that other pundits are commenting that the problem here is that Noam Bardin, Waze CEO, described Google as its only competition during a recent press conference. “Oh, how unusual, someone selling their company trying to increase the value of the company,” he said. “Has everyone forgotten about Nokia and TomTom? Does anyone really think they are incapable of competing with Google, Waze or the combination of both companies?”
Google Made Strategic Decision Not to Buy Tele Atlas and Navteq
Dobson said that, more troubling for the FTC and other antitrust interests, is this: If Google wanted to monopolize the mapping world, why did it not choose to bid (or counterbid) when Navteq and Tele Atlas were sold in 2007?
“I think the answer to this question is quite plain. Google did not participate in either acquisition because it had tried both companies’ data and found that the content quality and spatial coverage was not quite what Google had set as goals when developing its strategy for mapping. Instead, Google built its own ‘map machine’ and has managed to out-innovate either of these companies over the last several years,” Dobson said. “In addition, both Nokia and TomTom have fallen on hard times, not because of Google’s success, but because both companies overpaid for the assets they acquired, just before a worldwide economic downturn. Reduced budgets (for research and compilation) at TomTom and Nokia have had a lot to do with Google’s success in the mapping world.”
The big deal in Google’s interest in Waze lies in the success that the mapping startup has had in capturing traffic information, as well as how it has attracted a large user community willing to contribute traffic data, Dobson said.
“I doubt that Google will find that the map coverage provided by Waze has data they have not already mapped and mapped more exhaustively than Waze. However, it is somewhat camp to be an ‘anybody but Google’ fan boy and I suspect conspiracy theories about the acquisition will abound,” Dobson said. “I doubt that the FTC will find anything actionable. If Google were to announce next week that it was acquiring Inrix, I suspect that the FTC might have a real case with real antitrust issues.”
While Waze hasn’t generated much revenue, its real-time maps and traffic information are valuable. This value was magnified last year when Apple tried to replace Google Maps on the iPhone with a not-so-good alternative.
Analysts are looking around at what other companies are out there as potential acquisition targets — particularly as the smartphone industry becomes even more competitive. The apps on the smartphones will need to be distinguishable, particularly the mapping systems and capability, say several analysts.
One company that stands out as a potential acquisition target is TomTom, which is the last independent provider of digital maps, now that Navteq was gobbled up by Nokia.
TomTom and Tele Atlas jointly announced Thursday, June 5, that TomTom “declares the recommended public offer for all issued and outstanding shares with a nominal value of €0.10 each in the capital of Tele Atlas unconditional.” TomTom said it will grant shareholders who have not yet tendered their shares under the offer to tender their shares in a post-acceptance period lasting until June 26; these shares are less than 3 percent of the total Tele Atlas shares.
TomTom has been pursuing a merger with the digital map data supplier for nearly a year, outbidding rival Garmin in the process, in a deal worth approximately €2.9 billion ($4.5 billion). After a lengthy review by European anti-trust officials, TomTom and Tele Atlas received approval for the merger in May.
Earlier this week the companies announced that during the acceptance period, which ended May 30, some 63,625,232 shares had been tendered for acceptance. Together with the 27,235,651 shares already held by TomTom and 1,685,000 shares to be delivered by Tele Atlas board members, the shares totaled 92,545,883, or 97.48% percent of the total issued and outstanding shares of Tele Atlas capital.
As soon as legally possible, TomTom intends to remove Tele Atlas’ listings on European financial markets. The company also reiterated that it may initiate any of the reorganization measures as set out in the terms of its offer, which includes the possibility of a squeeze-out procedure.
The European Commission (EC) is taking a closer look at TomTom’s planned acquisition of TeleAtlas; it looks as if it might have a tough European road to hoe. The EC only initiates a second review in about 3 percent of the mergers it reviews, so it’s a bit of an extraordinary step. The probe will examine whether the deal would push up the price of digital maps for rival portable navigation device makers or limit their access to these maps, the EC said. It set an April 17 deadline for the probe to end.
TomTom and Tele Atlas said in a joint statement they expect to have a clearer idea about whether the deal can go through by early next year. TomTom extended its offer for Tele Atlas shares until March 31, assuming it would know the outcome of the probe by then.
Navteq Corp. said Monday that it has scheduled a special meeting of stockholders next month to consider approval of the previously announced merger agreement between the company and Nokia.
Finnish mobile phone maker Nokia and digital map supplier Navteq first announced on October 1 that they had reached a definitive merger agreement to the tune of $8.1 billion (€5.7 billion). In the meantime, PND rivals Garmin and TomTom became involved in a bidding war over Tele Atlas, a Navteq competitor.
Navteq stockholders of record at the close of business on November 13, 2007, are entitled to notice of the special meeting and to vote on the adoption of the merger agreement, according to the company. The special meeting will be held on December 12 in Chicago. Proxy statements and the accompanying proxy card were mailed to Navteq stockholders earlier this month, the company said.
Completion of the merger is subject to the adoption of the merger agreement by Navteq stockholders at the special meeting and the satisfaction of the other closing conditions set forth in the merger agreement. Navteq currently expects to complete the proposed merger in Q1 of next year.
