Slightly off topic, but I get a lot of frustration from Google Maps. Waze works well for me, while GMaps don't. So seeing those two merge more is bad news for me.
Google Maps is one of the services which actually does some minor damage to me. Delivery drivers usually blame me for not finding my street, while GMaps data is what is the problem. I've had one delivery person stuck in snow and require technical assistance in another street, because Google Maps shows my street there.
I cannot get Google to change my street name to correct legal one.I've tried 'suggesting an edit' it at least 10 times. There is no support to contact to or anything. I've looked. They say I don't have any proof that my suggested street name is correct - but I even add a link to Google Street view which has a literal street sign with correct name and coordinates. I tried official street registry links. Still rejected. It is insane.
I personally can use openstreetmap.org, but delivery drivers and etc. - they don't use it. So I am stuck in this non-sense.
Maybe Waze will bring some of the good UX choices over from Maps. Like not increasing my risk of crashing by making me click past warning screens, or silently closing itself in the background, or again making me take my eyes off the road to hit the "are you really really sure you want to close Waze?" popup instead of just damn closing when I hammer the Back button.
The only thing that keeps me from completely using Google Maps over Waze is the speed trap reporting (Google Maps has a similar feature, but it’s not nearly as effective as Waze’s).
I will be very sad on the day when Google decides to kill Waze. It is the only Google product I use and I will never abandon it because of one personal reason: it allows users to record custom voice for directions.
My wife recorded her voice in Waze and I love hearing from her telling me "turn left, honey", "be careful, there's cops ahead!"...etc.
I have used Waze regularly since 2014, and my perception is that it plans more aggressive routes (trickier turns, using side streets, etc) to shave off a few more minutes than Maps, whereas Maps will stick to the major, less complicated routes. But I haven't used Maps for routing lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if Waze/Maps are more similar than I realize.
I like it because I drive a lot on unsealed roads, and Google Maps doesn't want to help me find a fast route that involves gravel, whereas Waze has an option to allow that.
Waze doesn't seem to be aware of fords, but then, I wouldn't expect it to be.
I also like that I can tell Waze "I ain't afraid of tricky intersections", and that it's happy to take side-roads if it'll get you there slightly faster, which Google Maps prefers not to do.
My main use case is to "warn me of problems ahead" when I don't need navigation help. For example, it saved my butt when the road ahead iced-over suddenly. I saw numerous accidents ahead and pulled off before I was in trouble or stuck on the road behind a wreck. I passed several scary big truck accident scenes a couple hours later once the road had been sanded.
I've used Waze since first getting a smart phone and continue using it. It got us from California to North Carolina, and does a great job when driving up north or down to Florida. Hopefully this doesn't get affected by this change. I prefer it over Apple Maps or Google Maps.
Didnt they say that they would always be separate teams? Im not surprised by this move but surprised because I could swear when they bought it they said they would maintain both teams...
Very insightful post. And as much as a reader might think it highlights dysfunction at Google, the continued growth and success of Waze within Google argues otherwise.
If anyone at Gooogle is wondering why they are going through this pain or might have been fired it is because TCI, which is an activist hedge fund, decided they want to make more money and they have a giant share of ownership of Alphabet stock.
TCI sent Google a letter [1] telling them they need to cut people to get higher margins (>40%) as well as pay the investors more (stock buybacks).
Google is choosing to do what this group of investors says instead of supporting it's employees.
Edit: This data came from me asking myself of the headline "ok who is it that is putting "Pressure to Cut Costs" on Google." Luckily TCI made it really clear
They can send all the letters they want. Larry & Sergey have controlling interest[0] in Alphabet and can very much decide to ignore any of this if they want. In effect, TCI can't compel them to do anything they don't want to do.
I think merging Waze and Google Maps teams is actually smart, whether it cuts cost or not seems like they have similar goals as a product.
That said, doesn't mean Alphabet won't head some investors letters or something, so its always possible
No, you are very incorrect here. I am sorry to say that you fell for some spicy headlines, and there is no evidence to suggest TCI's letter had anything to do with this restructing.
TCI has a trivial stake in Google — at most, less than half of one percent of the company[0]. By voting shares, Larry and Sergey alone control >50% voting power[1]. TCI has nowhere near enough influence to move the needle in any appreciable way here.
[0] $6B / $1200B market cap (edit: to clarify, this is an upper limit, in practice it's even less because of super-voting shares owned by the founders)
Wow, I seriously never thought Google would be vulnerable to activist investor actions because it's market cap is too big and its shareholders too idealistic. I'm still not sure that's not the case? Activist investors are sending letters all the time, and it's not a given that they are taken seriously, only if a shareholder vote would approve of their company policy goals. How do you know that TCI has a serious chance of that happening? If not then it's likely that Google's leadership just ignores it.
Another explanation might be that tech companies are doing poorly in general at the moment, and Google is one of the few companies that hasn't done mass layoffs yet.
TCI owns much less Google stock than employees do. Larry, Sergey, and Eric still have most of the voting rights.
TCI is making the news for being an activist investor calling for layoffs because 1) the media is frothing at the opportunity to announce Google layoffs, even though none have been announced 2) the goal of an activist investor is to drum up support to make their activist wish happen.
That's pretty normal communication from investors. Everyone cuts costs, so some of yours will see a chance to make you do the same. I would be very surprised if Sundar loses sleep over this pdf.
Source: been on receiving end of such messages (bit smaller endeavor than Google though :-)).
The usual short-term thinking. Get more money quickly at the cost of the first major layoffs that demoralizes the company leading to nasty internal politics, gradually destroying the company from within.
Google has no expectation to “support its employees” by employing them unnecessarily. It’s not a jobs program. Frankly the fact that Waze is a separate org NINE YEARS after acquisition is astonishing and would only be justified if there were strategic reasons for doing so.
Counterpoint - Google employees get a large portion of their compensation in stock, particularly in upper management, and consequently have incentive enough to keep the share price high on their own.
Soon... Waze to be renamed as Google Maps. Old Google Maps will continue to be available for Google Enterprise customers and will continue to be called Google Maps. /s
I still use waze almost exclusively and it's consistently the best way to "plan" a future drive and have a reasonable expectation of traffic and when to leave.
I found this section interesting (of the TCI letter referenced in posts above) and I wonder how much this is factoring into Google exec thinking?
> Reduce losses in Other Bets
> Over the last five years, Other Bets has generated only $3 billion of cumulative revenues but incurred a massive $20 billion of cumulative operating losses.
Alphabet's investments in Other Bets have been unsuccessful. Alphabet should reduce annual operating losses in Other Bets (which we expect to amount to $6 billion this year) by at least 50%.
> The biggest component of Other Bets is Waymo. Unfortunately, enthusiasm for self-driving cars has collapsed and competitors have exited the market. Ford and Volkswagen recently decided to shut down their self-driving car venture, saying: "We have looked at this every way you can and we just see the profitability a long way out." Waymo has not justified its excessive investment and its losses should be reduced dramatically.
And is this kind of thinking just bandwagon, and not potentially accounting for some distinctive performance that Waymo may be on the verge of? (of course, seems like every AV company promises they're on the verge of something breakthrough)
Some day we'll have the technology to report speed traps via CarPlay. I'm guessing that they got a lot of pressure to nerf this feature from law enforcement, as crowdsourcing realtime info on speed traps kinda ruins it for the cops by giving everyone using Google Maps a very powerful long-distance detector.
Surprised they didn't merge Waze features into G Maps and discontinue Waze as a separate app long ago (could still have Waze app that's a wrapper around Google Maps)
I like Waze on many things, but it can be a bit sluggish and dated looking. Police reporting, and traffic routes are sometimes just better. You can also chat with a fellow Wazer ahead of you to see what's going on. Google Maps though is generally superior on app performance and any need for walking, mass transit, etc.
In some countries (Romania) they are -- you have to slow to a crawl since they are usually very bumpy. But I agree Waze is too aggressive, since train crossings are always well signaled.
I have been stuck on one way roads at a train crossing for 30 minutes at a time, making me way late for work. So I would actually love that in google maps.
This is an acquisition that should've been blocked. They only bought Waze to kill the competition and making sure no one else buys them. I know Waze did things differently, being much more crowd sourced, but it's not why they bought them.
[+] [-] neonate|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perceptronas|3 years ago|reply
Google Maps is one of the services which actually does some minor damage to me. Delivery drivers usually blame me for not finding my street, while GMaps data is what is the problem. I've had one delivery person stuck in snow and require technical assistance in another street, because Google Maps shows my street there.
I cannot get Google to change my street name to correct legal one.I've tried 'suggesting an edit' it at least 10 times. There is no support to contact to or anything. I've looked. They say I don't have any proof that my suggested street name is correct - but I even add a link to Google Street view which has a literal street sign with correct name and coordinates. I tried official street registry links. Still rejected. It is insane.
I personally can use openstreetmap.org, but delivery drivers and etc. - they don't use it. So I am stuck in this non-sense.
[+] [-] causi|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xcelerate|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zzyzxd|3 years ago|reply
My wife recorded her voice in Waze and I love hearing from her telling me "turn left, honey", "be careful, there's cops ahead!"...etc.
[+] [-] donatj|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fancyfish|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samanator|3 years ago|reply
In the US I solely use maps
[+] [-] EdwardDiego|3 years ago|reply
Waze doesn't seem to be aware of fords, but then, I wouldn't expect it to be.
I also like that I can tell Waze "I ain't afraid of tricky intersections", and that it's happy to take side-roads if it'll get you there slightly faster, which Google Maps prefers not to do.
[+] [-] Zigurd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vforvendettador|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suzzer99|3 years ago|reply
And then she hit the final badge and that was it. She was crushed. Why can't they just keep making more badges?
[+] [-] bitshiftfaced|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsagdiyev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unixhero|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yrgulation|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xs83|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MBCook|3 years ago|reply
What’s the benefit of Waze being a separate app at this point besides the brand name? Why not just fold it into the main Maps app?
[+] [-] mcenedella|3 years ago|reply
Very insightful post. And as much as a reader might think it highlights dysfunction at Google, the continued growth and success of Waze within Google argues otherwise.
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|3 years ago|reply
TCI sent Google a letter [1] telling them they need to cut people to get higher margins (>40%) as well as pay the investors more (stock buybacks).
Google is choosing to do what this group of investors says instead of supporting it's employees.
Just so you know.
[1] https://www.tcifund.com/files/corporateengageement/alphabet/...
Edit: This data came from me asking myself of the headline "ok who is it that is putting "Pressure to Cut Costs" on Google." Luckily TCI made it really clear
[+] [-] no_wizard|3 years ago|reply
I think merging Waze and Google Maps teams is actually smart, whether it cuts cost or not seems like they have similar goals as a product.
That said, doesn't mean Alphabet won't head some investors letters or something, so its always possible
[0]: https://capital.com/alphabet-shareholder-who-owns-most-googl
[+] [-] aroman|3 years ago|reply
TCI has a trivial stake in Google — at most, less than half of one percent of the company[0]. By voting shares, Larry and Sergey alone control >50% voting power[1]. TCI has nowhere near enough influence to move the needle in any appreciable way here.
[0] $6B / $1200B market cap (edit: to clarify, this is an upper limit, in practice it's even less because of super-voting shares owned by the founders)
[1] https://capital.com/alphabet-shareholder-who-owns-most-googl
[+] [-] mjfl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjulius|3 years ago|reply
>The company has too many employees and the cost per employee is too high.
>Headcount is too high.
>... the business could be operated more effectively with significantly fewer employees.
Yeah, cash-hungry hedge fund calling for layoffs. Got it. Yet here's an excerpt from the WSJ article on this restructuring:
>Google said it planned to maintain Waze as a stand-alone service and didn’t plan to conduct any layoffs as part of the reorganization.
[+] [-] AlbertCory|3 years ago|reply
Now, if Blackrock, Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, and all the pension funds got together, that might add up to something.
[1] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/market_cap
[+] [-] makestuff|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bla3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opportune|3 years ago|reply
TCI is making the news for being an activist investor calling for layoffs because 1) the media is frothing at the opportunity to announce Google layoffs, even though none have been announced 2) the goal of an activist investor is to drum up support to make their activist wish happen.
[+] [-] dzikimarian|3 years ago|reply
Source: been on receiving end of such messages (bit smaller endeavor than Google though :-)).
[+] [-] lobochrome|3 years ago|reply
Are "Property rights just for losers"?!
[+] [-] bitL|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spoonjim|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustLurking2022|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrep|3 years ago|reply
6 billion dollars worth or 0.5% of the market cap. Not so big
[+] [-] BurningFrog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matwood|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|3 years ago|reply
1) All shareholders will benefit including the employees who were well paid in stock.
2) When you sell an ownership stake you have to listen to owners. You might as well blame whoever decided to go public or sell the activist a stake.
3) Larry and Sergei have super voting shares and can block it if they want. But they probably want their shares to increase too.
[+] [-] chupchap|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skunkworker|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supernova87a|3 years ago|reply
> Reduce losses in Other Bets
> Over the last five years, Other Bets has generated only $3 billion of cumulative revenues but incurred a massive $20 billion of cumulative operating losses. Alphabet's investments in Other Bets have been unsuccessful. Alphabet should reduce annual operating losses in Other Bets (which we expect to amount to $6 billion this year) by at least 50%.
> The biggest component of Other Bets is Waymo. Unfortunately, enthusiasm for self-driving cars has collapsed and competitors have exited the market. Ford and Volkswagen recently decided to shut down their self-driving car venture, saying: "We have looked at this every way you can and we just see the profitability a long way out." Waymo has not justified its excessive investment and its losses should be reduced dramatically.
And is this kind of thinking just bandwagon, and not potentially accounting for some distinctive performance that Waymo may be on the verge of? (of course, seems like every AV company promises they're on the verge of something breakthrough)
[+] [-] seanp2k2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] insane_dreamer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smm11|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] partiallypro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bilsbie|3 years ago|reply
Also why does Waze think train crossings are a huge deal. It seems to go to great lengths to warn me a bout them.
[+] [-] FateOfNations|3 years ago|reply
https://9to5google.com/2020/08/12/waze-railroad-alerts-app-u...
[+] [-] gniv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mackatap|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinyhouse|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silexia|3 years ago|reply
I used to have a high level of trust in Google Maps, but starting six months ago or so, the directions got substantially worse.