I remember when that happened, and was pretty sure that a bidding war would start involving Garmin and Google, first for Navteq, and then for Tele Atlas, when they both were acquired (Google Maps used data from them, and it seems like they still do for some countries according to their Terms of Service: [1] and [2] as as examples).
[1] Canada: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ca/help/terms_maps.html [2] Argentina: http://www.google.com/intl/es_ar/help/terms_maps.html
Yes, NASA, Digital Globe, Et Alia, have built geographic information services (GIS), there are constraints, both on the data and on what you can do with the data. Google bought Keyhole [1] (the satellite imaging company) discovered that even if you had a satellite image you don't necessarily get to do what ever you want with it, and went out and funded their own satellite [2]. And of course you drive around cars and take pictures of everything, that seemed a little bit crazy at the time but folks like Trimble wouldn't let you use data about streets for doing directions, and then of course different data sets were all slightly 'off' from one another which is really illustrated in the article.
So various folks have invested in one part of the problem, but few have invested in solving the bigger problem, and assembling that solution for disjoint offerings is problematic and expensive at best, and impossible at worst.
That is what I considered the mind boggling investment. And of course the recent tit for tat maps announcements by Apple and Google just reminded me that both companies are pouring in a lot of resources. And yes, Microsoft is right up there as well.
Its quite the barrier to entry if you want to a map based startup. (or at least a huge dependency on an external parties continued pricing model)
[1] http://googlepress.blogspot.com/2004/10/google-acquires-keyh...
