Earlier this week navigation company Telenav announced they are switching mapping data provider from TomTom to OpenStreetMap for their iPhone app Scout. Scout is a popular navigation app focusing mainly on US market. Telenavs European market is covered by Skobbler which is well known OSM-based navigation app acquired by TeleNav in January 2014. In mid-2013 Telenav hired Steve Coast – the founder of OpenStreetMap who joined the company from Microsoft. Now we see why.
TELENAV WAS NOT FIRST ONE
Telenav is not pioneering in migrating to OSM. A lot of well-known companies adopted the open-source mapping platform, the same time ditching Google Maps. In 2012, Foursquare switched Google Maps for the OpenStreetMap-powered MapBox, Craigslist uses it for apartment searches, and even Apple has turned to OpenStreetMap data too. On the local markets, a lot of companies are using OSM instead of global or local data providers.
Of course, nothing happens without reason. Back in 2012, Google introduced usage limits for its API, which meant that once a third-party app exceeded 25,000 map loads for 90 consecutive days, the company/developer would have to pay $4 for every subsequent 1,000 map loads above the free allowance. This fee was subsequently lowered to $0.50 but it started the trend.
WHY COMPANIES SWITCH TO OSM?
There are basically three core things that make a good navigation mapping data: the display element (so the map itself), the navigability information within the map like speed-limits, one-way streets, and address points for “door-to-door” navigation. While OSM is very good in the first one and quite decent in the second one, it lacks a little bit with the last one.
The question is how much money is it worth to have a precise address points? When using different navigation devices or apps, we don’t thing that actually companies pay for geographic data quite a lot of money. The money goes to TomTom, HERE and local data providers. With decreasing revenues from sales due to free Google Maps app, navigation companies are searching ways to cut their costs. OSM still lacks a lot comparing to TomTom, HERE and Google who invested many years and billions of dollars to build their global databases but it is getting better every year. I must say that personally, I prefer Google Maps over OSM, I use ArcGIS instead of QGIS and Windows/Mac OS instead of Linux but I see some sense in what TeleNav is doing.
STRATEGIC MOVE
Google spends $1 billion a year to keep its maps up-to-date, TomTom and HERE are also investing a lot to keep their maps fresh. TeleNav decided to invest in contributing to OSM and at the same time use the crowdsourcing power of 1,5m OSM user community. On the one side it might bring a significant gain for the OpenStreetMap navigation features, on the other hand, it will attract OSM users who are surely searching for a good Google Maps navigation replacement.
TeleNav is betting on OpenStreetMap which might be a very smart or a very risky move. Users are used to high-quality data and precise routing in their navigation apps. Will Telenav be able to provide it right away? On the other hand, if guys at TeleNav are right that the future of mapping data is OSM, they will have a significant advantage over the competition.
What do you think about it?
#Business
Next article
Really cool mapping project by the TIME magazine which took over 400.000 Instagram photos tagged “selfie” that included geographic coordinated. The effect is the map and the ranking of the most egocentric cities on our planet.
The photos were downloaded from the Instagram API in two sets of five days: from Jan 28-Feb 2, 2014 and Mar 3-7, 2014. Each day’s data consists of the 24-hour period from midnight to midnight to account for all time zones equally. Of course the problem is that not every selfie is geotagged and named “selfie”. Also not all photos tagged as “selfie” are in fact selfies. But still the data are very interesting to play with.
Interestingly the most “selfie” city in world is the financial center of the Philippines – Makati City. Have fun searching for your city below.
1. Makati City and Pasig, Philippines – 258 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
2. Manhattan, N.Y. – 202 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
3. Miami, FL – 155 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
4. Anaheim and Santa Ana, Calif 147 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
5. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia 141 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
6. Tel Aviv, Israel 139 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
7. Manchester, England 114 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
8. Milan, Italy 108 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
9. Cebu City, Philippines 99 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
10. George Town, Malaysia 95 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
11. San Francisco, US: 91 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
12. Oslo, NO: 89 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
13. Boston, US: 88 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
14. Newark, US: 84 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
15. Honolulu, US: 82 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
16. Baguio, PH: 82 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
17. Paris, FR: 80 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
18. Denpasar, ID: 75 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
19. Leeds, GB: 72 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
20. Las Vegas, US: 72 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
21. Kuala Lumpur, MY: 72 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
22. Firenze, IT: 69 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
23. Copenhagen, DK: 69 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
24. Helsinki, FI: 69 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
25. Washington, D. C., US: 66 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
26. Cardiff, GB: 66 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
27. Oakland, US: 64 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
28. Amsterdam, NL: 64 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
29. Belfast, GB: 61 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
30. Bologna, IT: 61 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
31. Liverpool, GB: 58 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
32. Portland, US: 56 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
33. Lisbon, PT: 56 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
34. Atlanta, US: 55 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
35. Riverside, US: 55 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
36. New Orleans, US: 54 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
37. Glasgow, GB: 54 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
38. Leicester, GB: 53 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
39. Auckland, NZ: 53 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
40. Monterrey, MX: 52 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
41. Seattle, US: 52 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
42. Doha, QA: 52 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
43. Yogyakarta, ID: 51 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
44. Mueang Nonthaburi, TH: 50 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
45. Coventry, GB: 50 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
46. Edinburgh, GB: 50 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
47. Malmoe, SE: 50 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
48. Bari, IT: 49 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
49. Bristol, GB: 49 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
50. Johor Bahru, MY: 48 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
51. Sheffield, GB: 47 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
52. Napoli, IT: 46 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
53. Singapore, SG: 46 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
54. Athens, GR: 46 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
55. Stoke-on-Trent, GB: 46 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
56. Stockholm, SE: 45 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
57. Minneapolis, US: 45 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
58. Brooklyn, US: 44 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
59. Quezon City, PH: 44 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
60. Pittsburgh, US: 42 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
61. Bradford, GB: 42 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
62. San Jose, CR: 41 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
63. Dubai, AE: 41 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
64. Goeteborg, SE: 39 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
65. Adapazari, TR: 39 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
66. Wolverhampton, GB: 39 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
67. Dublin, IE: 39 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
68. Barcelona, ES: 38 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
69. Rome, IT: 38 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
70. Utrecht, NL: 38 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
71. Panama, PA: 37 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
72. Iloilo, PH: 36 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
73. Thessaloniki, GR: 36 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
74. Hull, GB: 36 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
75. Tampa, US: 36 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
76. Sacramento, US: 35 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
77. Denver, US: 35 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
78. Belgrade, RS: 35 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
79. Zurich, CH: 35 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
80. Eskisehir, TR: 35 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
81. Victoria, CA: 34 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
82. San Diego, US: 34 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
83. Catania, IT: 33 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
84. Turin, IT: 33 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
85. Carapicuiba, BR: 33 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
86. Poznan, PL: 33 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
87. Abu Dhabi, AE: 33 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
88. Bandung, ID: 33 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
89. Borough of Bronx, US: 32 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
90. Austin, US: 32 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
91. San Jose, US: 32 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
92. Sharjah, AE: 32 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
93. London, GB: 32 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
94. Bakersfield, US: 31 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
95. Staten Island, US: 30 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
96. Vitoria, BR: 30 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
97. San Juan, PR: 30 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
98. Edmonton, CA: 30 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
99. Birmingham, GB: 30 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
100. Nice, FR: 30 selfie-takers per 100,000 people
