Magellan SE4 navigation unit turns up at Best Buy
By Donald Melanson 
posted Oct 29th 2009 8:49AM
posted Oct 29th 2009 8:49AM
[Via GPS Review]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
That's funny, I thought I had just heard Garmin and TomTom stocks took a dump, but why?
Here's your sign!
Apparently many Engadget readers are strangers to sarcasm
.......and reply buttons
and Bill Engvall
google's free gps would probably help bring these gps devices to the sub-$100 level which is still very useful and attractive considering how many non-Droids are there.
also there's gonna be something that most droid phone wont be able to compete with these gps devices and that's the screen sizes. these 4.3" gps's are going to stay for quite awhile b/c most would not consider pocketing a phone the size of HTC HD2.
Droid does this...
Actually their stocks went down as a result of the Droid running Google Navigation. Gives all the navigation perks for free compared to Garmin which charges for them.
beautiful
A little late now that Google has a free alternative...
http://farview.wordpress.com/
They did go down because the people behind the stock market fail to grasp the fact that Android phones are not going to magically replace dedicated navigation units for so many reasons. But it's from Google! So the hype is about 100x what the reality is.
You know...more than Android handsets will get gMaps Navigation...right?
Just making sure you know. Knowledge is power and all that yack.
Agreed.
Can some one tell me the % of cell phones in the US that are smartphones? I'm thinking it is still relatively low.
I'm not paying 50$+ per month for a phone and there are many like me...where a dedicated GPS will be great.
Doesn't matter if it comes to every phone platform there is it is not going to replace dedicated units like this one.
1. people, a LOT of people, don't even have cell phones in the first place and won't go out and pay for one and a service contract just for this "free" app.
2. Many people buy one dedicated unit and swap it between multiple vehicles depending on who needs it, or lend them to relatives for vacations etc. Anyone that believes that even a large percentage of GPS user are going to switch to using phones instead are delusional.
3. The dedicated units are way more accurate than Google Maps, which is not very good at all for giving directions that actually work. The company I worked for used to include a printout of the Google Maps directions to customers sites with the service package and they caused so much complaining about being wrong and led to so many missed appointments that we switched to dedicated units. And that was just in the five state area around the great lakes.
4.The new features they are bringing like street view and satellite images had better be about 100x better than Google Maps displays now because most for the areas here in northern Ohio are severely outdated and don't show buildings that we built 4-5 years ago.
5. Google maps ofter pin points the location of POI and landmarks way off from their real location. If they haven't been able to correct that with all their effort in the online version over the past years what makes anyone think that they fixed it for this offering.
I could ramble on about it for a long time about being connected all the time and data plan usage etc but I'll leave it at that.
I have a smartphone from Verizon now with their Navigation program and it is only good as a situational use/backup unit for a dedicated navigation device and that is not going to change because its Google.
Yeah, I can agree with you.
Yet in the end, it's still speculation. Not just yours, but everyones....whether they're cheering for Google or the PND's.
Nobody knows what will happen, and it could go either way.
Nobody thought the iPhone would come in and do what it did, but look where most are at now.
In 2006 it was thought that linux would have 26% of OS market share.
Nothing is as clear as it seams. Anything could happen, and I'm just open to the possibilities...
Don't get me wrong I am fine with Google releasing this for phones and many people may switch to it instead of paying extra for the Verizon or AT&T versions, anyone that wants to can compete in the market, that is just business. My concern is that this is competing in the phone based segment of the navigation market and yet this will hurt the dedicated companies that really are in a separate market segment. The ones that have devoted a lot of time and money for mapping companies to develop this system and bring it to the masses. When I really don't think that it will effect more than a small percentage of the overall combined market. I would hate to see speculation ruin companies and then be stuck with less choices and none of them as good.
Sorry but I totally disagree. And yes I own an Android device.
How long do you think people are going to continue to be willing to purchase a $100+ device that must be updated yearly to get up to date maps for an additional fee? What about the charge for live traffic updates? The "Dash" product was a partial success, this just takes that concept one step further.
How many vehicles are broken into because the GPS is left in the car? How many people enjoy carrying multiple devices for their phone, iPod and GPS?
This is all about converging devices. There's no point in these devices if you already own another device that does everything.
I was in REI a few months ago comparing the GPS's with my phone's GPS capabilities. Seriously, the days that Garmin, Magellan and Tom Tom can charge over $100 for these devices and then charge for updates is OVER. And based on the quality of most of these devices, and how much money consumers have been blowing on these half rate, barely tested devices, it's about dang time.
And as for marketshare in the US, 39% of cell phones sold this year were smartphones. So the market reaction was spot on. Garmin, Magellan and Tom Tom better start dropping these devices by 50% if they remotely think they're going to be players in this game.
well off of techcrunch " ...But what users have today isn’t even close to the new Navigation product.
First off, it’s connected, which puts it ahead of all but a tiny percentage of in-car navigation systems which have no Internet connectivity..."
DW
The reason Garmin, TomTom, etc, charge what they charge is for the map licensing. The problem with Google Maps is, while they are pretty good maps (I use them all the time), they are not as good as the maps that come with TomTom, Garmin and others. Also, most phone GPS is not as accurate as the dedicated units. There are several places where a dedicated device absolutely kills most cell GPS.
Screen size and ratio
Better maps
Better reception
No need for cell coverage (even though Google's service caches, you cannot start a new route without coverage)
No worries about getting a call in the middle of a trip
A UI designed for its purpose, not tacked on
MP3 players and cell phones were a natural fit. GPS and cell phone really aren't. At least not as your only in-car solution. Anyone who really needs GPS functionality will still want a dedicated device.
@ cashmonee
First off, Google maps used to use NavTeq and TeleAtlas until a year ago due to Nokia acquisition of NavTeq (http://gesterling.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/google-maps-bounces-navteq/). Now they standardized on TeleAtlas.
I won't deny that NavTeq has historically been more accurate, but how long do you seriously think that will last, when you take into account that the 3rd party data is only a part of their mapping process?
And when you account for Google's ability to reuse phone handset location information in real time, don't you think Google could essentially re-map roads automatically (for example, in construction zones where roads have shifted beyond the current lines provided by the map). Google already does something along these lines with "Google Latitude".
According to the information we've seen, the Google Navigation caches the trip information at the start of the trip. This in itself makes it much more useful.
So really, I understand the benefits of having a map loaded, but it's arguably out of date before it's published. And whats to say the next thing out of Google's hat won't be giving away their own maps for existing GPS's? I'm really hoping that they do move on to topo maps, because then the competition will really heat up.
We've been down the free vs paid road before, and it seldom works out for the paid guys no matter how well entrenched they are in the market. And based on my experience with Garmin, I can honestly say I'd exceedingly happy that there's finally some competition in the GPS area. The garbage-cheap models that are instant landfill fodder are history, and the feature filled and open-expansion models will finally get to a decent price.
DW
I agree that free wins versus paid and I think pay apps such as the TomTom iPhone appcan not really compete against this offering. However, I do think that a dedicated GPS unit is so much better than GPS on a phone that TomTom, Garmin and the rest have little fear, especially if they can work deals to be the GPS provider for car manufacturers. I think the real future of GPS nav is built-in to the car as a standard or near-standard feature with a large 5"+ screen and use of the car existing stereo, not on a portable device of any sort phone or PND.
I must agree with Dennis on this one. PND are MUCH better suited for their purpose than cellphones for a ton of reasons, including many more important that what Dennis mentioned. I actually think that cellphone GPS and PND's will have the same relationship as cellphone cameras and traditional digital cameras. I think it could be a popular feature that people will use in a pinch, but will never actually replace a PND. Especially as they get more prevalent in cars.
Oh and about the Google hype. How many of their products have the top share in their market? One, search. Nothing else Google has done has caught on to the point where they have taken over any market that I know of. So if ever there was a company that does not deserve the hype they receive, it's Google. And the idea that they could push out every player in the navigation market is ludicrous when looking at their history.
You forgot about Google Maps...
http://www.hitwise.com/us/datacenter/main/dashboard-10133.html
Google Maps 14.68%
MapQuest 11.13%
Yahoo! Maps 2.26%
Bing Maps 1.31%
Good find. Still, clearly an extremely fragmented market where Google is clearly not dominate. My point was more that people expect anything Google does to be an absolute home run that takes over the market, when, in fact, they have only done that once, search (I don't consider 14%, 3% over Mapquest to be a home run).
those numbers include other travel websites, so you can probably equate the numbers by the mapping sub category up by a factor of 3.
Note that Google maps only came on the scene a few years ago, and Mapquest was the dominant map website until as recently as February '09, so these more recent numbers appear to be rather interesting:
http://weblogs.hitwise.com/us-heather-hopkins/2009/02/google_maps_edges_closer_to_ma_1.html
What do you mean "a lot of people don't even have cell phones"? Are you basing this on data from 1985? Just adding up the 4 major carriers, you get 255 million customers, in a country of just over 300 million. That means that even most children have cell phones.
And delusional...? In order to update your map pack for a dedicated unit yearly, it costs nearly 100 dollars. Versus a free service, with maps that are auto-updated, and way more accurate (as opposed to your claim) than standalones due to being aGPS, with free traffic due to the internet connection. Then, coupled with the actual fact that nearly everyone in America owns a cell phone, no need for swapping anything. Even VZNavigator is way better than standalones. As far as pinpointing ROIs off the mark, welcome to the world of GPS, where address numbers are estimated and rarely accurate.
Unless you're going to geek out your car with a giant GPS antenna, there's no chance a dash unit outperforms an aGPS unit. None.
I believe the iPhone uses aGPS. If there is no dash unit that outperforms it, why is TomTom including an extra chip in its cradle? In fact, in my own experience, the GPS in my 3GS is not consistently accurate enough for turn-by-turn.
Sorry beg to differ. I have a Verizon Samsung Omnia and the Navigator program and is most definitely NOT better than my dedicated unit in accuracy or in its maps. I have tested the two against each other several times and it is a situational backup unit at best for me.
Also the number of phones under contract to the carriers does NOT equal the number of people that have cellular phones 1:1, not by any means. I have two cell phones at all times. personal and work. On days that I am covering certain customers sites where we have resident technicians I can have 3 or 4 different units assigned to me that are that company specific units. Almost every single company that I do service work for gives out cell phones to all their supervisors and maintenance technicians. Many industries and professions have the same deal where people have on call or duty phones given to them.
I can take a slice of 100 people that make up family, friends, neighbors and co-workers and maybe 30 of them have personal cell phones. Maybe that is geographical in nature or big city compared to rural areas etc. I do not know. But your almost everyone has one theory is way off.
iPhone uses aGPS in the 3G and 3GS... not in the original iPhone. Therefore, TomTom has no choice, but to include a GPS chip in their car dock. Otherwise, the car dock is not necessary if you wish to own TomTom's terrible GPS service.
Just for clarification on the original iPhone as I neglected to include it. The original iPhone has *no* GPS chip in it... hence the TomTom car kit.
I love my Magellan. I've owned two of them and find they are less expensive than TomTom and Garmin while still delivering on the better features.
Wanna save some cash...try getting a used GPS on craigslist.
This is why map updates are really not that important.
from http://www.artba.org/about/faqs-transportation--general-public/faqs/#9
"How much new road capacity do we build every year in the U.S.?
U.S. highway capacity has been growing very slowly in recent years.
Currently, the U.S. has just over four million center-line miles of roads, providing 8.42 million lane-miles for highway travel, according to the Federal Highway Administration.
Between 1997 and 2006, the U.S. built an average of 8,015 center-line miles of new roads per year. This, along with widening of existing roads, added 20,233 lane-miles per year. This means the capacity of the highway system grew less than one-quarter of one percent per year."
WTF is that 2D map
Map updates aren't just for the roads, they are for restaurants, businesses, phone numbers, etc...
Which is still free on a phone system...why would you pay 100 dollars for what is a hooked up phone book?