My guess is you read Gruber's summary of the WSJ story but didn't take the time to read the WSJ story itself. Google refused to provide Apple with turn-by-turn. Turn-by-turn is a huge win for users.

No I didn't read the WSJ article (just tried it, but there's a paywall) but from what I understand from this article is that they were willing to add more features (incl. turn-by-turn) in exchange for more "branding" as John Gruber puts it.

No, the WSJ reported that they were not, and the quote you're taking from Gruber's article is based on that WSJ article.

Google did not have turn by turn data when the iPhone was introduced, so it's not surprising the deal did not include it. (Android maps app had turn by turn only one year after the first Android phone was released).

Apple tried to negotiate access to it and failed, is what the WSJ reported.

It's hard to "take the time" to read a story behind a paywall when you have no desire to give money to the entity owning the wall.

Based on the publicly-available information, it's not clear that Google did any such thing. They might have refused, or Apple might not have liked their terms, or Tim Cook may have held a seance to get advice from the ghost of an angry Dijkstra, or a hundred other scenarios of varying plausibility. It's hard to say.

I like this attitude that says because you can't find the source Gruber is quoting, some random counterfactual must be true.

I did not find it hard to read the WSJ article he cited. You did. That's fine. But that does give you license to invent new facts.

> I like this attitude that says because you can't find the source Gruber is quoting, some random counterfactual must be true.

I didn't say that at all, and you don't have the excuse of not having access to the entirety of my publicly-available comment. I don't consider it implausible that Google refused, I simply have no basis for believing that over other plausible scenarios.

Yes, you do: the WSJ article that reported that. The one Gruber not only cited but linked to.

My point is that that article is not available to me or the public at large. You can't expect to cite secret evidence and have us just believe everything you say. You're not Dick Cheney.

I'm done replying now, since you don't seem to be getting it.

By this logic, Taco Bell burritos aren't available to me or the public at large because they cost like 79¢. Yet somehow Taco Bell makes millions off these unavailable burritos. It's almost like you're not being reasonable here.

Just because something takes a modicum of effort to obtain doesn't mean it's "unavailable." You can either pay a modest sum for the Wall Street Journal or just go to a library and read it there. It is readily available. If you choose not to read it, you don't then get to pretend the evidence therein does not exist.

Reading full original sources is like a message board super power.