Competition is awesome (see iPhone Google Maps saga)

Google released the much anticipated Google Maps iPhone app yesterday and the reviews so far are pretty good.  I personally didn't think that the Apple Maps were as bad as they were made out to be, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  What this whole saga shows is the importance of competition and why so much focus on monopolies is paid by governments around the world. First, a little background:  the original maps application on the iphone was developed at the very last minute before the original iPhone launch by an Apple/Google team back in 2008.  That just goes to show you how important maps have become, in  2008 it was an afterthought .  Four years later and nothing had changed, Google actually refused to license their maps data to Apple so that it could be enhanced with new features such as spoken driving directions.  For many reasons, this being one of them, Apple decided to venture out on their own.  We all know what happened next:  huge uproar, people almost dying in deserts in Australia, apple execs were fired, and a written apology was given from the Apple CEO.

Fast forward to today.  Customers now have the choice between Apple Maps (and their advantages) and the new Google maps application.  There is no doubt that what Google just deployed is significantly better than what was available in iOS 5, it includes a slicker UI, better transit map integration, and voice driving directions.  I'm willing to bet Google would not have created this app in such a quick timeline if Apple hadn't upped the anti by putting out their own app.

One of the things that doesn't seem to get any press is the neat stuff now supported by iOS 6 for transit directions.  Sure, Apple doesn't have them integrated, but they do provide a means for 3rd party app developers to tie into the iPhone maps.  When I use the Rover app (link), it not only gives me transit directions but also pulls in real-time transit data telling me when buses and subway cars are going to arrive in San Francisco (and I assume other cities as well, like Boston).  This is better than what I had in the iOS 5 Google maps and as far as I can tell it's better than what Google released yesterday in their new app.  Publishing a schedule of when buses are supposed to arrive is signficantly less useful than knowing when exactly they will actually arrive.

Bottom line:  yes, Apple has looked awful through this whole mess, but because they took a gamble and pushed for innovation, iPhone owners are no doubt in a better spot than they were previously.  There is now an all out war between these two companies to keep innovating.  For me, companies going at each other's throats is a good thing and is why capitalism has become THE economic system in the world today.

Startups versus the corporate world

2012 has been quite the year for my career:  I've quit two jobs, worked as a part time consultant/contractor, and started a company (we have yet to launch our first product yet).   In the past 8 months I've probably learned more than I did in the previous 3 years, it is exhilarating but also incredibly exciting to be learning once again.  I hope to write more at a later time about what I've learned,  but this blog post called "Corporateshit" by the founder of Speekapp (Danny Boice) is incredibly amusing and generally spot on with many of my own experiences.

Lame 4G marketing and why Bostonians should choose Verizon Wireless

If you live in Boston, here's a good reason to have Verizon Wireless as your carrier.  First, courtesy of @michaelrestivo, I read an article talking about the lame marketing efforts of companies like AT&T to brand today's HSPA+ networks as "4G".   You have likely seen the ads plastered all around the city advertising this, when in fact they have made little investment or technology changes compared to the new LTE network that Verizon just rolled out.  Here was my favorite quote:

Even if HSPA+ networks may beat LTE someday, they don’t today. If you’ve got an HSPA+ device (like the iPhone 4S), you’re likely to achieve download speeds of between 1 and 3 megabits per second. That’s about half the speed of the average U.S. home broadband connection. An LTE device (like the new iPad), meanwhile, will let you download at speeds of 5 to 12 megabits per second, according to both AT&T and Verizon. That’s about on par with your home broadband line. In practice, then, real 4G handily beats faux 4G.

For wireless carriers, though, real 4G networks—that is, LTE networks—are expensive and time consuming to install. In 2010, T-Mobile decided that it would focus on improving its 3G network rather than build out its LTE capabilities. The company began touting that its new HSPA+ network could offer “4G speeds.” This marketing trickery was criticized by everyone in the industry, including AT&T. “I think that companies need to be careful that they're not misleading customers by labeling HSPA+ as a 4G technology. We aren't labeling those technologies as 4G,” an AT&T spokesman said back then.

But now AT&T has changed its mind. Mark Siegel, a spokesman, told me that the company’s about-face came as a result of a 2010 decision by the International Telecommunications Union that HSPA+ could be referred to as a “4G.” This change is very convenient for AT&T, because while its LTE network is smaller than Verizon’s, its HSPA+ network is the largest in the country. If 4G is taken to mean LTE, then AT&T loses to Verizon in the coverage wars. But if both HSPA+ and LTE are 4G, then AT&T’s network looks really great, and its claim that it’s the largest 4G carrier in the country isn’t total balderdash.

Later that day I stumbled across another article that features an infographic based not on an alphabet soup of technologies like CDMA, LTE, or HSPA+, but real live data based on two iphone apps that SwayMarkets produces (DataMonitor, which keeps tabs on your monthly data usage so you don't incur extra fees, and NetSnaps, which tells you how the WiFi or wireless network is performing where you are).  It shows that based on real time usage Verizon is clearly the leader in signal strength, speed, and low latency (shortest response times by servers basically).  Bottom line:  if performance is your only consideration, you should go with Verizon Wireless.

Here is the infographic from SwayMarkets, a Cambridge startup:

Why I despise Comast

I'm still a little surprised that Comcast is allowed to operate as they do in Boston, considering they more or less have a monopoly.  I had decided to be a trendsetter a few years back to cancel my big cable bill and just go with basic cable (it seems everyone is doing this now in the Hulu and Netflix world we now find ourselves in).  At the time, it was $12 per month for basic channels (CBS, NBC, PBS, FOX, ABC).  In the last few years it's risen about 50% to $18 per month.  Since I never watch it and realized I could buy an HDTV antenna for about the cost of 2 months service, I decided to finally cancel cable all together.  Here's where my surprise comes in, because as soon as I tell them I want to drop my $18 cable bill they tell me the price of my internet will go up $16.  Imagine if other businesses worked like this: you are at a restaurant and you decide you don't want an appetizer.  The waiter says "sure, no problem", but then all of the entrees cost $10 more. Do you have any annoying Comcast stories yourself to share in the hate?