MapPoint 2003 Fleet Management provision

The provision states that there will be a cap on the number of vehicles to be tracked. Why is Microsoft trying to dictate how we use their software? Especially if we are developing with, promoting, marketing and selling MapPoint? They didn't let the US Antitrust Dept. manipulate them. Why are they letting a company like Navigation Technologies manipulate them??? And, worse than that, why are they, in turn, manipulating their own supporters?
We believe that Microsoft MapPoint is the leader in desktop mapping software. However, with the type of restrictions stated in the provision, we might be forced to move to a different platform.

As the letter states, Microsoft is not the one to blame. Navtech is imposing the restriction. Navtech is a supplier of street centerline data to many companies supplying fleet management applications and I believe this will bring them in line with restrictions on other license agreements.

Yeh,

But what "Guest" is presumably worried about, like other vendors, is that this could be the start of many other restrictions in the EULA.

One of the most attractive features of MapPoint is its simple EULA and the fact that you can use it for any purpose or application. This is what has been called "the rat in the kitchen" of GIS/LBS. Chase it, and you will either find the "kitchen is bigger than anyone anticipated" OR "the kitchen has just become part of the "McSoft-franchise" and you can only eat burgers there (although they are surele tasty). Meaning, the market could be grown by Microsofts marketing and reach in the business and consumer markets OR data vendors have just sold out to become extremely dependant of -one- software vendor. It's a Catch22 in the end, since we all know MS has been, is and will be making the software we want to sell, but we all kind of fear losing grip on innovation.

My opinion: if there is a company that has proven to be able to innovate in this market as well as Microsoft is expected to do, show some hands! Would it be ESRI? MapInfo? Autodesk??

Of course, NavTech HAD to impose these restrictions to appease their other vendors. There was only one alternative for NavTech which was to trust in the -volume- Microsoft should be able to generate, which could make the risk of subtitution much easier to swallow for NavTech.

I guess now they themselves must face the risk of being substituted by Microsoft itself. Only one other vendor out there capable of doing that as we all know. I must wonder what their plans are now...

:evil:

I'm not sure what other restrictions there could be. Fleet management will be restricted. Server and internet solutions were already barred. What's left now is the core purpose of MapPoint - visualizing points and business data on a map. I can't image MS will let any of its vendors touch that.

I think the better question is whether MS is just accepting this Navtech-required change until they can replace Navtech with an alternative vendor, or whether they are conceding the fleet market for the long term. My bet is that they'll just move the ISVs that want to do fleet management to MapPoint .NET for now, and then figure out how to re-enable fleet management with the desktop product at some later date.

:twisted:

You're absolutely right. The MapPoint.NET EULA, which will be the more interesting one as FMS solutions will become more and mroe server-based, is not touched by this change.

Stupid mistake by NavTech?

Go to your local software vendor and take a look at the Microsoft MapPoint packaging box. Microsoft gets the big logo stamp (2), while Navtech and GDT get little stamps. Microsoft is the company that sent the letter. Microsoft is the company hosting the "conference call". Microsoft is delivering the bad news, and, therefore, Microsoft is to whom I am responding.

Are you being a little naive to think that ANY company can impose restrictions on Microsoft?

You're right that MapPoint is a Microsoft product, but that doesn't mean that Nav Tech has no ability to dictate terms. In the end, Navtech owns Nav Tech data. Microsoft is a licensee of that data, which means they have to comply with whatever terms Nav Tech provides. If Microsoft and Navtech can't agree terms, Nav Tech pulls out, which leaves a MapPoint without maps unless Microsoft finds an alternative supplier. It's pretty obvious that this is the discussion that happened between Microsoft and Nav Tech, and in the end Microsoft chose what they must see as the lesser of two evils (i.e. Nav Tech data with restrictions is better than no Navtech data).

Microsoft happens to be the messenger of the news that dramatically affects our business...and my customers.

I have been an advocate and supporter of Microsoft MapPoint for over a year now and I don't anticiapte that will change after a phone call this morning.

I am eager to understand how the changes will positively enhance the business process for my customers. Once I understand that, I will continue to be an ambassador to the current leader in business mapping software.

Cheers to healthy debates!

:( I have just spent about three weeks getting a prototype gps based application running using Mappoint. It was to be used to help schedule service technicians. We write software for customers with as many as 6000 service technicians/vehicles. I guess it's time to start to look for another product that does not have a limit of 50 vehicles. Any suggestions?

Navtech is one of 3 primary competing data suppliers in the market - that MSFT looks at anyway - and MSFT uses 2 of them. MSFT does incredible things to the data - to improve it, to make it work with one another. Navtech is looked at as the leader in the navigation area while GDT is the leader in addressing and positional accuracy. The data compilation models are totally different in each organization - with Navtech driving the streets (initially more current and accurate, more costly to implement, and more costly to keep current) and GDT focusing on a compilation model and partner development (which is stated by them as having a much lower cost model and currency capability). It's a good race right now - but considering that GDT has only been building the transportation attribution for 3-4 years they have made up a ton of ground on NT and the gap is closing.

Don't fear EULA changes...data providers will protect themselves but there will always be a horse in the race that is going to run to the front if someone stumbles. The data will always be there...MSFT will make certain of that.

That being said...this move does benefit the .NET model.

Just kind of jumping in here - I haven't read all I need to yet. My first question would be how are either MS or Navtech going to enforce these restrictions? If they are counting on the honor system to hold fast in the face of draconian restrictions, they might be surprised.

Navtech is the most accurate digital map database available. There's a reason that MS agreed to the terms. They had to in order to continue using Navtech for routing. The individual who said that GDT is catching up to Navtech in terms transportation attribution is sadly mistaken. Navtech spends a lot of money on driving the roads to collect the attributes needed for safe and legal driving directions. Driving the roads makes their product superior in positional accuracy as well.

GDT has got the market cornered on GIS solutions that don't require routing or navigation. Beyond GIS, they can't compete

Latest post disregards NavTech greatest and only competitor: Tele Atlas, which has navigable streets of most of the same countries. Especially stronger in Europe.

:( I have just spent about three weeks getting a prototype gps based application running using Mappoint. It was to be used to help schedule service technicians. We write software for customers with as many as 6000 service technicians/vehicles. I guess it's time to start to look for another product that does not have a limit of 50 vehicles. Any suggestions?

Try DeLorme - www.delorme.com

Please check out a detailed answer about the MP 2004 EULA here (http://www.mp2kmag.com/mappoint/discussion/viewtopic.asp?t=4634).