The only solution is more competition, not less. Trying to limit who can do what has only ever led to worse outcomes. There's nothing stopping a non-profit group from creating maps today if they wanted to.
The idea that a non-profit could compete in the current economic and cultural climate is laughable. Some social change is required, and government for all its flaws is the logical place for such change to actually gain some teeth.
The free market is exactly what allows anyone to compete, and Apple and Microsoft already do so, along with dozens of industrial providers.
I don't believe "authoritarian" applies to companies. If anything corporatism is authoritarian.
If there are valid regulations to follow then sure but that's not what the parent comment seems to be suggesting.
There's no "free-market capitalist society". Just a really-existing capitalist society (like "really-existing socialism" which touted one set of values, but practiced another), that sells to people the lie that markets are (and can be) free, when they aren't in most ways that matters.
None of that has to do with Google being "forced to close" its Maps just because you don't like ads.
Except if you think e.g. forbidding them from using child labor or from not hiring women/blacks etc. are authoritarian too, then you already agree that a society can impose some laws (onto companies), and them to not be authoritarian.
If you agree to the above, then now the main difference is that you think the above examples are "fair" and "ok", whereas the other proposal is not. But that's a matter of opinion, not some objective truth.
The only power they (we) have to enforce such policies is to stick a gun in someone's back. It's true that some matters call for the initiation of violence to maintain a greater societal good. You've cited some worthwhile examples but this isn't one of them.
If you agree to the above, then now the main difference is that you think the above examples are "fair" and "ok", whereas the other proposal is not. But that's a matter of opinion, not some objective truth.
Our Constitution lies somewhere in the middle between opinion and objective truth. It carries more weight than the former (those guns again) and less than the latter. It arguably doesn't provide the legal tools needed to force Internet search engines and map providers to work on a nonprofit basis.
There are other countries whose founding documents don't include similar constraints. Fortunately, nobody will shoot you for trying to leave this one.
> There's nothing stopping a non-profit group from creating maps today if they wanted to.
Apple and Google probably feel very differently. We've already seen them fight it out, wait till they join together to start keeping their boots on the up and comers.
In the end I don't give a rat's ass about their profit line and I put advancement of Earth and its people as my top priority.
>> I put advancement of Earth and its people as my top priority.
Great. Are you working on a mapping service?
> Great. Are you working on a mapping service?
That's fallacious. I don't have a giant pile of money sitting around. But I support initiatives like OpenStreetMap even if I see room for improvement.
I'm not sure who you're arguing with because we all want more options, and we already have several from Apple, Microsoft and others. I definitely don't want my taxes being spent on another poorly executed govt project though.
>> I don't have a giant pile of money sitting around.
Maybe you should care about profit then because that's why Google Maps exists.
But I don't want ads in my map software any more than I want ads in my travel atlases.
As maps go, its pretty nice - much more reminiscent of printed maps. But, its of no use for more practical tasks like providing directions, or finding restaurants.
In fact, before the web era, they also made the best maps (e.g. the British military maps).
Government vs private is not mutually exclusive. Like another commenter said, the US Geological Survey already has mapping data available. Adding in traffic from local agencies and weather from the National Weather Service is relatively simple so we can definitely have a neutral public maps service. None of that requires forcing Google Maps to close though.
"You are passing a rare gem, take exit 20..."
Well, it was a rare gem, until exploited for a buck. No way I want to go now. All sorts of ugly can happen here.
The shouldn't. They should be forced to close, and Maps and Search should be provided by a non-profit, internationally controlled (UN etc), organization, not a for-profit company.
That's my opinion of what would be best. Some services (like "indexing the world's knowledge") are too important to be left to private interests and be monetized via ads...