This is what led to their demise, no?
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=tomtom
.. that's also when I stopped using them I think, and what's interesting is that once you get into the habit of using a new map+navigation service it seems quite hard to switch or is that just me? (I want to try Apple because I like them more than Google but I'm just so used to Google Maps)
I don't think it's just you. :) I know a fair number of iOS users who switched to the standalone Google Maps app during the, shall we say, rocky first year of Apple Maps, and who I've never been able to convince to look back -- and these are people who live in the San Francisco Bay Area, where Apple Maps is arguably at its best.
DonHopkins 5 months ago | parent | context | favorite | on: TomTom to cut 10% of jobs due to improved automati...
I worked at TomTom in Amsterdam from 2007-2009, and had a fun time and learned a lot working with some smart people at a great company that treated us well and had good leadership.
But TomTom was just on the cusp of a small company turning into a big company.
And the savings and loan crisis was about to cause the economy to collapse.
Then TomTom got into a bidding war with Garmin over Tele Atlas.
So they ended up borrowing a whole lot of money at a really bad time.
Just as the iPhone was hitting the market, and Google and Apple were rolling out free maps and turn-by-turn navigation on smart phones that everybody already had.
I wrote about that earlier in the discussion about Etak:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13747015
DonHopkins on Feb 27, 2017 | parent | context | favorite | on: Who Needs GPS? The Story of Etak's 1985 Car Naviga...
"Etak eventually became a part of TomTom, ensuring that its map data, some of which was first digitized back during the Navigator's development in 1984, would live on to this day."
The story of how TomTom and not Garmin ended up owning the data originally digitized at Etak is interesting. At the time, there were only two digital map companies: Tele Atlas (from which TomTom got their map data) and Navteq (from which Garmin got their map data).
From Wikipedia [1]:
"On July 23, 2007, a €2 billion offer for the company by navigation system maker TomTom was accepted by the Tele Atlas board. This was then trumped by a €2.3 billion offer from United States-based rival Garmin on October 31, 2007 initiating a bidding war for Tele Atlas. TomTom responded by upping their bid to €2.9 billion, an offer which was again approved by the board of Tele Atlas. Garmin had been expected to counterbid once again: with Tele Atlas' main global rival Navteq subject to a takeover bid from Nokia, the company had stated that it did not wish both companies to fall into the hands of rivals. However, after striking a content agreement with Navteq through the year 2015, Garmin withdrew its takeover offer, clearing the way for TomTom. On December 4, 2007, TomTom shareholders approved the takeover. The European Commissioner for Competition cleared the takeover in May 2008, and it closed in June."
TomTom (where I worked at the time) was shocked and dismayed that Garmin outbid them by €300 million on Tele Atlas, because while it made a lot of sense for TomTom to buy their own map data supplier, it would have been prohibitively complex and expensive for Garmin, who used Navteq data, to switch map data sources and retool their entire map data digestion, distribution and error correction pipelines.
TomTom was so determined to buy Tele Atlas and keep it out of Garmin's hands, that they raised their bid by €900 million.
In the meantime, Garmin renegotiated their deal with Navteq, so they didn't have to pay as much for the data, and didn't have to switch map suppliers.
The stunt that Garmin pulled off was, in my opinion, an ingenious head-fake that cost TomTom an enormous amount of money, almost a billion euros, and at the same time saved Garmin a whole lot of money by enabling them to renegotiate a better deal with Navteq, who was faced with losing their major customer if they didn't lower their prices.
We need a new alternative word for "free" when it comes to advertising companies. Something short to say "the cost is too abstract and indirect to understand fully or describe, but does impact society at large". Maybe "free-ish"?
Nothing is truly free as people commonly conceptualizer it in their mind. Just alone receiving something at all comes with strings, even if they are not apparent. There is a term that describes this issue rather well in German, “vogelfrei”. It refers to being as free as a bird, which is assumed to be a great thing, but it also means you are free to be hunted and predated.
Free is also the theme of a deal with the devil. I will self-censor here a bit about what is the devil, because the devil’s censorship is more consequential than if I do it to myself for the time being.
I don’t think this is an accurate assumption. Many adults probably have a nagging feeling about this version of free, I doubt most of us can accurately describe the cost (and most wouldn’t care to try).
I mean it really does “feel” free in that the costs are so abstract and externalized. In fact I’d argue that it has completely changed our perspective on pricing, value, and entitlement.
Anyways, total tangent to the main topic.
