Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Sep 2012 19:24 UTC
Apple "The major new feature of the company's new iOS 6 mobile operating system is a new mapping module developed by Apple itself - a replacement for the Google-supplied maps that have been standard on the iPhone since it debuted in 2007. It is a change borne not of user demand, but of corporate politics: Google's Android platform is the biggest competitive threat to the iPhone, so Apple is cutting ties with Google. iPhone owners might have loved Google Maps, but Apple has no love for Google. Unfortunately, Apple's new maps are simply not as good as Google's." That's putting it mildly - my own town barely even exists on Apple's maps. It's basically a trainwreck, and according to The Verge, Apple has been working on this for the past five years. This is what happens when a company cares more about stupid grudges than its customers. Considering how much effort it has taken Google to get where it is now with maps, don't expect Apple's maps to even get near Google Maps any times soon. This isn't going to take months - this is going to take several years, if at all.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Bending Unit
by Bending Unit on Thu 20th Sep 2012 20:24 UTC
Bending Unit
Member since:
2005-07-06

Using Google maps, I could almost follow me home inside looking at Google maps.

While that is a bit frightening, the new maps is in gray scale, blurry, from a large distance and cloudy.

Yes, my neighborhood is all covered in clouds.

Useless.

Reply Score: 4

Wrong turn, Apple
by WorknMan on Thu 20th Sep 2012 20:26 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13
Comment by tupp
by tupp on Thu 20th Sep 2012 20:26 UTC
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

"... but, you see, Apple's controlled integration of hardware and software along with its 'curated' app store yields a far superior, problem-free user 'experience.'"

Enjoy your waiting-in-line "experience," suckers!

Reply Score: 9

RE: Comment by tupp
by Laurence on Fri 21st Sep 2012 09:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by tupp"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"... but, you see, Apple's controlled integration of hardware and software along with its 'curated' app store yields a far superior, problem-free user 'experience.'"

Enjoy your waiting-in-line "experience," suckers!

That's assuming they can find their way there without Google Maps

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by tupp
by s-peter on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 10:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tupp"
s-peter Member since:
2006-01-29

"Enjoy your waiting-in-line "experience," suckers!

That's assuming they can find their way there without Google Maps
"

Of course they can find their way there, everyone and their dog already have smartphones with Google Maps. The real question is, after they got there and switched to iPhone 5 / iOS 6, will they be able to get back home?

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Thu 20th Sep 2012 20:43 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

If enough people complained, would they likely back down and go back to using Google Maps?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by jackastor on Thu 20th Sep 2012 20:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
jackastor Member since:
2009-05-05

Certainly not if Jobs were still alive, but if the corporate warfare is still continuing now that he's gone, maybe still not. But that begs another question: Has Apple ever deferred to another company's product for superiority?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 20th Sep 2012 21:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I think they gave up on social networking with the ping thing. Now they're working with facebook and twitter. I think I heard that iCloud is actually hosted on top of Microsoft's Azure could. There are other examples, I'm sure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by Laurence on Fri 21st Sep 2012 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Has Apple ever deferred to another company's product for superiority?

Occasionally, MS Basic, for example.

Apple generally buy the competition if they can though (or use open source technologies).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by jackastor on Fri 21st Sep 2012 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
jackastor Member since:
2009-05-05

That's what I thought. They'll certainly buy any small operations that have a chance at becoming competitors. Lala.com was a reeeeally nice alternative to the DRM iTunes store at cheaper album prices until Apple bought and gutted them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by moondevil on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Apple generally buy the competition if they can though (or use open source technologies).


The open source part is only after they got the NeXTStep guys on board.

Apple used to be as proprietary as it gets.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Thu 20th Sep 2012 22:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The Apple - Google maps divorce is, I suspect, a mutually agreed separation. Apple's existing mapping agreement with Google is approaching to it's expiration date and neither seem to want to continue with the relationship.

Apple is caught between a rock and hard place on the maps issue. When iOS and the iPhone was first conceived Apple felt so confident about being dependent on Google for some core services such as Maps that it worked closely with Google before the launch of the first iPhone to write what was, at the time, the most advanced implementation of Google maps on any mobile device. Apple felt able to have an intimate and close relationship with Google, to the point of inviting Google's CEO onto it's board, because it felt that the two companies businesses did not overlap and there was no competition between them. But then Google redesigned Android to directly compete with iOS and effectively launched a competitive attack on Apple's new flagship product. Worse was to follow as Google began introducing Map features such as turn-by-turn navigation to the Android version of it's mobile mapping offering but not to it's iOS version.

Clearly Apple could not continue to be dependent on Google for its core mapping function with the threat of that function slowly degrading in comparison with the Android mapping function and the possibility of Google pulling the plug on it's iOS maps at some point in the future. Apple needed a mapping plan B. So it set about buying various mapping companies and hiring mapping talent but it had, and still as, a lot of catching up to do compared to Google's head start with mapping.

So when the Apple-Google mapping agreement approached its expiration date it is no surprise that Apple decided to take the opportunity to cut the cord tying it's mapping system to Google. It's also no surprise that it's initial offering is in some areas weaker than Google's, mapping data gets better primarily through usage and not through design and it will take a while for Apple to accumulate the sort of usage data that Google already has.

I suspect that Google was also prepared for the end of it's relationship with Apple. Google almost certainly wants to insert ads into mapping (something Apple won't accept on an Apple made bundled app but would probably accept on a stand alone Google maps app) because Google has to insert more ads in more places in all its offerings because it's revenue per click has been declining so drastically in recent quarters.

But Apple dropping Google maps doesn't just degrade Apple's maps, at least initially, it also undermines Google's mobile maps because mapping data gets better primarily through usage and not through design and at least half of Google's mobile map usage just went away. Half. So Google's maps will get worse (or at least stop getting better) whilst Apple gets to use all the usage by iOS users to enhance it's map offering.

In addition the way Apple has implemented the mapping feature is as a core OS service which can be used by developers to develop all sorts of new and interesting mapping apps and services. It's via third party apps that Apple wants transit info to be available on it's maps for example but it hopes for all sorts of new mapping initiatives from its large developer community. This is something that was impossible using the old closed Google mapping system where Google jealousy guarded core mapping functions and location data because such data is fundemental to Google's business model whilst it is peripheral to Apple's. So in a lovely ironic turn Apple has opened mapping on iOS compared to Google's closed approached.

It will be interesting to see whether Google offers it's own mapping app for iOS, if they want all that valuable data from iOS usage then they need to do something.

Apple is slowly inching away from Google search with deals with the likes of Yandex in Russia and and Baidu in China but it must tread carefully and slowly as Google's search offering will be a lot harder to replace.

And Apple isn't the only one inching away from Google.

While Apple builds it's map service the quickest way to deal with the interim inconvenience is to go to maps.google.com and then select 'Add to Home Screen'. Not perfect but it fixes most of the problems.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 20th Sep 2012 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Worse was to follow as Google began introducing Map features such as turn-by-turn navigation to the Android version of it's mobile mapping offering but not to it's iOS version.


For someone as well-versed into Apple as you claim to be, you know damn well that Google had no control over the iOS map application. It was designed, built, and maintained solely by Apple.

Google wanted to add stuff - but Apple didn't do it. Recent articles on the web confirm that this was the case because Apple was already working on its own mapping application, which they released with iOS 6. In fact, a modern Google Maps application has been ready for a while now, but Apple won't approve it for iOS.

http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/20/google-has-an-ios-6-maps-app-awaiting...

Please, stick to the facts. This is entirely Apple's OWN doing.

Reply Score: 14

v RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Thu 20th Sep 2012 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by Slambert666 on Fri 21st Sep 2012 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Tony Swash, do you work for apple?

Your svada sounds like it is coming from a paid tool and not a regular user.

Anyways, speculations, BS and lies... that's it...

Reply Score: 12

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by allanregistos on Fri 21st Sep 2012 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10


I didn't say that Google controlled the Map app but it does control the whole infrastructure upon which Apple's Google maps runs.


@Tony. You mean, hardware infrastructure? Or the whole eco system of Apple's google maps? What do you expect for, Apple's Google maps will be powered under Apple's Cloud(If they have any), or at Microsoft's Azure, or at Amazon cloud?

The only thing that Apple will take control logically is the hosting of the application itself=Google Maps app for iOS. But they can't just fork the whol Google Maps infrastructure and run it under their private iCloud.

Edited 2012-09-21 07:37 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"
I didn't say that Google controlled the Map app but it does control the whole infrastructure upon which Apple's Google maps runs.


@Tony. You mean, hardware infrastructure? Or the whole eco system of Apple's google maps? What do you expect for, Apple's Google maps will be powered under Apple's Cloud(If they have any), or at Microsoft's Azure, or at Amazon cloud?

The only thing that Apple will take control logically is the hosting of the application itself=Google Maps app for iOS. But they can't just fork the whol Google Maps infrastructure and run it under their private iCloud.
"

OK. I thought I wouldn't have to spell this out but I was wrong.

Mapping systems, like Google's and now Apple's, have a big infrastructural back end. Some of this infrastructure is the servers that the data is held on but that is the most trivial part. The most important part is the gathering of the actual mapping data (city and road maps, topographical information, business and landmark locations, route data etc, etc,) and that is a lot of complex data to collect, manage, make available in a usable form to map users and to keep up to date. On top of all that directly inputed data there is a very important layer of user generated data, this is in many ways the most important aspect of a mapping service, because as millions of map requests are made a tremendous amount of data is generated and collected which can be fed back into improving the complex data search algorithms that make the mapping requests work. This user data is also used by Google to implement it's core business, which is selling advertising, and a limited sub set of that data is sold on by Google to third parties to build, within limitations set by Google, their own maps implementations.

All that infrastructure I have just listed was owned and controlled by Google and delivered via an Apple written app in previous versions of iOS. Given that, as I have pointed out, since this arrangement was first made Google has gone from being a close partner of Apple to being a direct and very significant competitor and given the central importance of mapping in building a wide array of mobile services, it is hardly surprising that Apple does not want a central pillar of it's mobile services controlled by its main competitor in the mobile arena. I cannot see how that statement or Apple's move away from Google maps is in any way controversial or surprising.

Equally unsurprising is that V1 of Apple's mapping system is going to be creaky and patchy. What would have been surprising is if Apple had produced a V1 mapping system that was as comprehensive as Google's on day one, for a start Apple has no usage data to feed into it's map locations because it has not had any users of it's mapping system until this week. But now that will change. This week Google lost half it's mobile mapping users and Apple gained at least a couple of hundred million map users. This is a big shift with lots of profound implications.

The inadequacies of V1 of Apple maps is the least interesting thing about this initiative. Of more interest, and I am surprised that there is not more discussion about this in forums such as this, is the fact that Apple's maps system is so much more open than Googles. For a start Apple is using OpenStreetMap data for their maps ( http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/apple-iphoto-maps-2012039/ ) which should give a tremendous boost to the open mapping community and reduce the significance of closed proprietary map systems like Google's. I have read a lot on these forums that 'open' is better than 'closed' so I am still awaiting the wave of congratulatory support for Apple's mapping move.

Additionally Apple's mapping system is a core iOS system, one that will support many specific, and hopefully powerful, mapping initiatives from within the ranks of iOS developers who are now free of the limitations imposed by Google's closed mapping system and are now thus free to build some very powerful mapping solutions.

Google may well respond with it's own iOS mapping app but whatever happens this move will spur competition in the mapping arena and that can only be a good thing for consumers. The previous mapping monopoly that Google held in the mobile arena (Bing maps are all but irrelevant in mobile because Windows phones sell in such tiny numbers) was not healthy. Again given that so many rail against monopolies on these forums I am surprised that more people are not supporting the dismantling of Google's mapping monopoly.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!
by dsmogor on Mon 24th Sep 2012 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

One can only hope that with OSM they will follow the same path as with web kit. I don't know to what extent OSM license forces it but disrupting mapping market with good enough, public mapping DB would benefit almost anyone (besides Nokia , Google and handful of spec. companies).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Google wanted to add stuff - but Apple didn't do it. Recent articles on the web confirm that this was the case because Apple was already working on its own mapping application, which they released with iOS 6. In fact, a modern Google Maps application has been ready for a while now, but Apple won't approve it for iOS.

http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/20/google-has-an-ios-6-maps-app-awaiting...

Please, stick to the facts. This is entirely Apple's OWN doing.


Turns out that that rumor is false. Jim Dalrymple at the Loop, who is known to have insider information from Apple and has a perfect track record of posting a 'yep' or 'nope' against various Apple rumors has posted a 'nope on this one. Based on his previous 100% record I take that as confirmation of a definite no on the Google map app submission rumor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Sep 2012 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

He is also a bigger Apple fanboy than Gruber (which says a lot) and hates Google with a passion, and thus, has a clear motivation to say "no" in this case.

I'm not going to believe that dude.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

He is also a bigger Apple fanboy than Gruber (which says a lot) and hates Google with a passion, and thus, has a clear motivation to say "no" in this case.

I'm not going to believe that dude.


Even though he has a 100% track record of verification in relation to Apple rumors? Your standards of evidence are strange.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!
by maccouch on Fri 21st Sep 2012 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

dude, no offense but where can i find such pristine record of inside information by darlymple?

That seems more one of those things that people say that then become socially accepted truths, no matter no one had ever done such study or even seen such data.

I might be wrong but then, we're back at my original question. Where can i find such record of 100% accuracy?

Edited 2012-09-21 13:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"He is also a bigger Apple fanboy than Gruber (which says a lot) and hates Google with a passion, and thus, has a clear motivation to say "no" in this case.

I'm not going to believe that dude.


Even though he has a 100% track record of verification in relation to Apple rumors?
"
[citation needed]

Your standards of evidence are strange.

WHAT evidence? You haven't provided any - or do you seriously believe that the track record of the person making a claim is the same thing as evidence for that claim? Because it's not, in fact your post could be a textbook example of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

And even then, you still managed to screw it up, because clearly only iFanboys consider Darlymple to be any kind of actual authority. Pretty sad that you can't even use a fallacious argument properly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!
by JAlexoid on Mon 24th Sep 2012 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

**

Edited 2012-09-24 08:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by MOS6510 on Fri 21st Sep 2012 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

But does he have an Apple necktie? I do, since this morning.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!
by Soulbender on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Is it from Colombia?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Stephen!
by MOS6510 on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Stephen!"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, how did you know???

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by konrad on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
v RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by brichpmr on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
RE[5]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Tue 25th Sep 2012 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

He is also a bigger Apple fanboy than Gruber (which says a lot) and hates Google with a passion, and thus, has a clear motivation to say "no" in this case.

I'm not going to believe that dude.


Turns out his was right and you were wrong

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/25/us-google-iphone-idUSBRE8...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by darcysmith on Fri 21st Sep 2012 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

Hapilly ignoring the license from Google did not allow Apple to do turn by turn navigation....

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by JAlexoid on Thu 20th Sep 2012 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Same what Thom said

Edited 2012-09-20 22:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by grahamtriggs on Thu 20th Sep 2012 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
grahamtriggs Member since:
2009-05-27

"Worse was to follow as Google began introducing Map features such as turn-by-turn navigation to the Android version of it's mobile mapping offering but not to it's iOS version."

Apple controlled the iOS version, and held back it's features. Hell, that's their entire model with iOS - introduce new features, but deliberately hold back support across handsets to encourage users to upgrade.

They could easily have turned over the app to Google, and had a contract with them to keep the app up to date. But then that would mean features would ship without Apple's control, and weaken their upgrade PR.

Remember, Apple Maps restrict features to only the iPhone 4s and 5 that were in 3 year old Android phones. Restricting support has nothing to do with what the older iPhones are actually capable of.

"But Apple dropping Google maps doesn't just degrade Apple's maps, at least initially, it also undermines Google's mobile maps because mapping data gets better primarily through usage and not through design and at least half of Google's mobile map usage just went away. Half. So Google's maps will get worse (or at least stop getting better) whilst Apple gets to use all the usage by iOS users to enhance it's map offering. "

That's not really true. Whilst Apple has a more active (per handset) and profitable App Store, Android is pulling ahead in shipped handsets, thanks to the diversity of handsets (and prices). People may not buy many apps for Android, but that doesn't mean they don't use the apps that are installed. So Google will continue to accumulate more usage data for it's maps than Apple will, with or without their maps on iOS.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by koffie on Fri 21st Sep 2012 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
koffie Member since:
2010-05-06

... Hell, that's their entire model with iOS - introduce new features, but deliberately hold back support across handsets to encourage users to upgrade.


Android Handset makers just don't offer new Android versions instead, holding back all new features and performance optimizations so you'll buy the next model ;) This is a bullshit argument, before Apple started with regular software updates for even their old phones, no-one did this in the phone industry. I had a Sony-Ericsson P910 for 2 years and didn't see any software updates at all during that period. Same for my Nokia communicator before that.

This is one of the things (that and horrible battery management) that's keeping me far away from Android, Software updates. No I'm not gonna fiddle around with custom ROM's, I want a smartphone I can manage my life with, not a smartphone I have to manage, which is the feeling I always get with Android. My iPhone 4 got an upgrade to iOS6. And contrary to their iOS4/iPhone 3G fuckup, this is actually a huge improvement in both speed and usability. If you ignore the Maps app, which is indeed worse, I actually got more, not less features. Should I be angry I didn't get them all? I don't feel that way, most of all, I'm happy I still get software updates the day the update is released, even after having this phone for 2 years. Try finding a 2-year old Android phone that's still treated as a first-class citizen and gets an update to the latest and greatest that quickly. Hell, even brand-new-ones don't get this. So if you want to argue on this-one, sorry - you lose.

Also everyone here seems to assume it was only the decision of Apple? I know that Google didn't allow some things in the maps app Apple wanted badly (certainly in the first versions) - like more offline caching. This is the first iPhone/iPhone 3G era where Apple had it's disagreements/issues with carriers for overloading/stressing their data networks. Also not doing turn by turn was also a problem with Google's map policy/licensing, which explicitly stated that you weren't allowed to use it for this purpose as a 3rd party, Apple was no exception. I imagine some people at Apple weren't too happy when Google announced this being included in Android.

But the iOS 6 maps app indeed is problematic. It's biggest problem is lack of data. Thing is, this is a point Apple cant reverse on. They have no choice but improve this, and the advantage they have is that their problems lie with data entirely on their servers. They don't have to push software updates. Yes it will take a good while before it'll be as usable as Google maps, but it'll have to get there.

All in all, I'm actually pretty optimistic about this-one, especially since Google maps finally gets a competitor now. And I love healthy competition (not fanboy crap).

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by JAlexoid on Mon 24th Sep 2012 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Android Handset makers just don't offer new Android versions instead, holding back all new features and performance optimizations so you'll buy the next model

You get what you pay for, but even the low cost devices have had updates.
As for top models, they've received at least one major update. (Galaxy S went though 2 major updates, BTW)


All in all, I'm actually pretty optimistic about this-one, especially since Google maps finally gets a competitor now. And I love healthy competition (not fanboy crap).

At the moment is a non-competitor and it will not be an actual competitor(as with most things Apple, it's very restricted to their platform). Google Maps is the app on Android and will be one of the most popular apps on iOS.

Edited 2012-09-24 08:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"
"But Apple dropping Google maps doesn't just degrade Apple's maps, at least initially, it also undermines Google's mobile maps because mapping data gets better primarily through usage and not through design and at least half of Google's mobile map usage just went away. Half. So Google's maps will get worse (or at least stop getting better) whilst Apple gets to use all the usage by iOS users to enhance it's map offering. "

That's not really true. Whilst Apple has a more active (per handset) and profitable App Store, Android is pulling ahead in shipped handsets, thanks to the diversity of handsets (and prices). People may not buy many apps for Android, but that doesn't mean they don't use the apps that are installed. So Google will continue to accumulate more usage data for it's maps than Apple will, with or without their maps on iOS.
"

See my comment and links below showing why it is reasonable to assume that iOS users account for a very high percentage of Google mobile map users.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by phoudoin on Fri 21st Sep 2012 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Clearly Apple could not continue to be dependent on Google for its core mapping function with the threat of that function slowly degrading in comparison with the Android mapping function and the possibility of Google pulling the plug on it's iOS maps at some point in the future.


Oh yeah.
And to avoid this to happened, Apple pulled the plug itself, *sudently* degrading the iOS mapping function in comparaison with Android ones.
Well done.

While I understand the politics behind all this, much part of them being there in the first place *only* because Apple can't keep their nerves under control, they just forgot about what's matter: user experience.

And *absolutely* no user were complaining about Google Maps user experience under iOS5 and sooner.

Let's see how long Apple customers would tolerate a worse mapping user experience because it's *strategic* for Apple.

Another front just open on Apple vs the world war.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Another front just open on Apple vs the world war.


Google is not the world (hope that didn't shatter your world view too much.

Apple just broke a monopoly - why aren't you applauding?

Apple maps are based on open source maps and are more open to third party developers than Google's, why aren't you applauding this triumph of 'open' over 'closed'?

A cynical observer could be fooled into thinking that when terms like 'open versus closed' or 'monopoly' get thrown around in criticism of Apple that actually they are just rhetorical phrases used to tart up cheap Apple hatred and in no way reflect any actually held principles or beliefs.

As I said a cynical observer may well think that but I couldn't possibly comment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by flypig on Fri 21st Sep 2012 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

Apple just broke a monopoly - why aren't you applauding?


I'd argue it's a bit of a stretch to call Google a mapping monopoly. TeleNav, Tele Atlas and Navteq also have large market shares (Navteq still runs on a lot of non-smartphones, after all).

I couldn't find statistics for the rest of the world, but in China recent results show Google with 17.5% of smartphone market share.

http://english.analysys.com.cn/article.php?aid=139099

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by phoudoin on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09


Apple just broke a monopoly - why aren't you applauding?


Because, so far, what can only be observed is that they broke iOS native mappings user experience?

Plus, AFAIK, the new iOS Plans app is still not open. The API to access is even more closed than the previous one, and while it allow third parties plugins to join their geolocation data as an overlay, the way the maps, is composed, the way the search is done, the way directions are computed, all these are still as closed as they are with Google Maps.
Worse, I'll bet that contrary to Google Maps, only iOS apps will be allow to use it, while everybody can use the Google one, from web site to desktop to embebded widget, whatever the plateform.

Calling the iOS Plans switch a move toward openess is quite ironic. It's many thing, mostly a political move more than anything, but it's far to be an open movement victory.

Apple maps are based on open source maps and are more open to third party developers than Google's, why aren't you applauding this triumph of 'open' over 'closed'?


OpenStreetMaps is only one of the maps source that are reported to be used by Apple's new Plans app, and cleary theu don't use the default rendered tiles but does the rendering themselves. And it's not a *triumph*, otherwise we won't have this thread in the first place.
Did you notice how fast TomTom reacted publicly, stating that they're selling their maps database, but not the one to blame on what is done (or not) from them.

And, IIRC, no satelites images are yet under open licenses. But, wait, you're right, the old monochrome WW2-like satelites photos are under public domain. That's a triumph of "open". Except for the... Not.

A cynical observer could be fooled into thinking that when terms like 'open versus closed' or 'monopoly' get thrown around in criticism of Apple that actually they are just rhetorical phrases used to tart up cheap Apple hatred and in no way reflect any actually held principles or beliefs.


1) Apple's new Plans app is still closed as it was before, except for third parties that Apple is happy to take extra data to enrich their currently quite-emptier -than-they-used-to-be maps.

2) Where did you read that Apple made this move *because* Google was closed? Or because they can't stand closed-core-technology anymore (after 5 years of reflexion...) !?

3) Even a cynical observer knows why they did this move, and the customer was never part of the motivations.

4) Last but not least, only a cynical observer can't see the gap between the June presentation of Maps and the actual Maps experience today, and can't think if the move was for a better user expérience Apple"s Q&A will *never* *ever* give the green light. Which is incidentely the proof that the move's motivation is somewhere else, neither the "let's go open-washing" you're trying to push, neither a better user experience
that customers will have to wait longer to get and meanwhile to tolerate a lesser experience than under iOS 5.

And that, every iOS customer can see it, not only the cynical ones.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by JAlexoid on Mon 24th Sep 2012 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple maps are based on open source maps and are more open to third party developers than Google's, why aren't you applauding this triumph of 'open' over 'closed'?


Wake me up when they start contributing back to OSM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by phoudoin on Mon 24th Sep 2012 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Apple maps are based on open source maps


BTW, I've checked and AFAICT they use OpenStreetMaps *only* in iPhotos app.

So, no, Plans is still not based on open source maps.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by kovacm on Fri 21st Sep 2012 07:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

This is something that was impossible using the old closed Google mapping system where Google jealousy guarded core mapping functions and location data because such data is fundemental to Google's business model whilst it is peripheral to Apple's. So in a lovely ironic turn Apple has opened mapping on iOS compared to Google's closed approached.


beautiful post! entire post!

this was only way for Apple - they must further distance from Google (clearly: competitor in almost all fields today, and even more in future!) and make new partners (facebook and twitter).

and maps will be most important base for many new applications/services to come.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by phoudoin on Fri 21st Sep 2012 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

this was only way for Apple - they must further distance from Google


Sorry, but how does an iDevice *customer* should care one bit about that!?!

What he should care is it's own user experience.
Which is vastly degrading regarding mapping and, new iPhone 5 customer bonus, it's even more expensive than before.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by Laurence on Fri 21st Sep 2012 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

at least half of Google's mobile map usage just went away. Half.

iOS doesn't even count for close to half of all Google's mobile map usage. Let alone Google Maps as a whole.

Though I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you as in the past you've repeatedly proven to be quite beyond any kind of reason.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

" at least half of Google's mobile map usage just went away. Half.

iOS doesn't even count for close to half of all Google's mobile map usage. Let alone Google Maps as a whole.

Though I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to you as in the past you've repeatedly proven to be quite beyond any kind of reason.
"

We don't have any confirmed stats for Google map usage by platform but what we do know, because it has been confirmed from multiple sources over a period of time, is that iOS users use the web on their devices significantly more than Android users.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/02/mobile_web_stats/

These recent figures show iOS account for 65% of mobile web traffic.

Similarly we also know from Google's own testimony at Washington hearings that Apple's iOS devices account for 65 per cent of mobile web traffic versus Android's 20 per cent

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/02/mobile_web_stats/

So I think it is reasonable to assume that map usage is probably running at a similar rate to general web use and search use, I certainly cannot think of any reasons why it wouldn't. I think my suggestion that half of Google's mobile map traffic comes from iOS is probably an underestimate.

We know iOS system upgrades are adopted fast and by a very high percentage of iOS users so as I said almost all that map traffic to Google traffic will disappear in the next few weeks as iOS 6 system upgrades continue.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Stephen!
by Laurence on Fri 21st Sep 2012 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


We don't have any confirmed stats for Google map usage by platform but what we do know, because it has been confirmed from multiple sources over a period of time, is that iOS users use the web on their devices significantly more than Android users.

Nice try, but Google Maps isn't a web app (well, it is now for iOS6 lol). It's a smart phone app which pulls data directly from Google's cloud - so while it does depend on the internet (and, to a lesser extent, the web), it's not a reflection of user-agent stats for mobile browsers.


So I think it is reasonable to assume that map usage is probably running at a similar rate to general web use and search use

Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

We know that Android outsells iOS by quite some margin. Not everyone who buys a smart phone will bother to surf the web with it (I certainly try to avoid doing that if I can help it) but default apps (such as Google Maps is on Android) do get used - a lot. So it's not unreasonable to assume that Google Maps usage wouldn't the same as general web surfing.


We know iOS system upgrades are adopted fast and by a very high percentage of iOS users so as I said almost all that map traffic to Google traffic will disappear in the next few weeks as iOS 6 system upgrades continue.

I guess only time will tell.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!
by saso on Fri 21st Sep 2012 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Stephen!"
saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Oh boy, your comment contains so much spin it would take several pages of facts to debunk fully, so I'll try to condense the most important points.

The Apple - Google maps divorce is, I suspect, a mutually agreed separation ... and neither seem to want to continue with the relationship.

How did you determine that? Oh right, you simply invented it. Fact: Google plans to publish their own iOS6 maps app, so it seems extremely unlikely they would willingly surrender the prime spot they had in iOS so far.

When iOS and the iPhone was first conceived Apple felt so confident about being dependent on Google for some core services such as Maps ... But then Google redesigned Android to directly compete with iOS and effectively launched a competitive attack on Apple's new flagship product.

So it is about a business grudge, at least partially.

Worse was to follow as Google began introducing Map features such as turn-by-turn navigation to the Android version of it's mobile mapping offering but not to it's iOS version.

Just a few lines before you claimed Apple designed the app and now you say that Google blocked the feature to appear in an app that wasn't designed by them? Are you familiar with the term "internally inconsistent"?

Clearly Apple could not continue to be dependent on Google for its core mapping function with the threat of that function slowly degrading in comparison with the Android mapping function and the possibility of Google pulling the plug on it's iOS maps at some point in the future...

As was pointed out by other commenters, the lacking features were (perhaps entirely) due to Apple's unwillingness to implement them in their own Maps app (which only interfaces with Google for the raw data). Without any more data on the topic I am forced to conclude that Apple had at least a hand in the lack of features and it cannot be blamed entirely (if at all) on Google.

It's also no surprise that it's initial offering is in some areas weaker than Google's, mapping data gets better primarily through usage and not through design and it will take a while for Apple to accumulate the sort of usage data that Google already has.

Trying such experiments on your customer base who expect the new product to be better, not worse, is a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless, how the situation will develop remains to be seen. I don't think Thom's conclusion "This isn't going to take months - this is going to take several years, if at all." has so far enough evidence to support it.

Google almost certainly wants to insert ads into mapping (something Apple won't accept on an Apple made bundled app but would probably accept on a stand alone Google maps app) because Google has to insert more ads in more places in all its offerings because it's revenue per click has been declining so drastically in recent quarters.

Pure unsupported conjecture. I've yet to see Google insert ads into any maps at all, so if you have data points which support this "almost certain" assertion, show them.

In addition the way Apple has implemented the mapping feature is as a core OS service which can be used by developers to develop all sorts of new and interesting mapping apps and services. It's via third party apps that Apple wants transit info to be available on it's maps for example but it hopes for all sorts of new mapping initiatives from its large developer community. This is something that was impossible using the old closed Google mapping system where Google jealousy guarded core mapping functions and location data because such data is fundemental to Google's business model whilst it is peripheral to Apple's. So in a lovely ironic turn Apple has opened mapping on iOS compared to Google's closed approached.

Again, the app and its interfaces were developed by Apple, not Google, so it was Apple's fault for not making it embeddable as reusable components. I'm almost certain Google would very much welcome this kind of feature, because it is already offered on their web-based Google maps (you can embed maps and subsets of its functionality in websites).

It will be interesting to see whether Google offers it's own mapping app for iOS, if they want all that valuable data from iOS usage then they need to do something.

Google already has the app waiting in the App Store approval process: http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/20/google-has-an-ios-6-maps-app-awaiting...
So the ball is in Apple's court now.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by Stephen!
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Stephen!"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Fact: Google plans to publish their own iOS6 maps app, so it seems extremely unlikely they would willingly surrender the prime spot they had in iOS so far.


That's a rumor. Google and apple have said nothing - see my other post on this matter

So it is about a business grudge, at least partially.


Please try to think like a grown up - using words like grudge is just silly because it implies that reducing dependency on your main competitor for a core aspect of your product is somehow emotional rather than obvious good business sense. I repeat - how would you feel if Apple controlled the mapping service on the Android platform?


Again, the app and its interfaces were developed by Apple, not Google, so it was Apple's fault for not making it embeddable as reusable components. I'm almost certain Google would very much welcome this kind of feature, because it is already offered on their web-based Google maps (you can embed maps and subsets of its functionality in websites).


Apple were not free to use Google map data as they wished any more than anyone else is, everybody is restrained by Google's terms and Google had monopoly on mobile maps. In the last week that monopoly was broken. I thought people didn't like monopolies on this forum or did I get that wrong?

Google already has the app waiting in the App Store approval process: http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/20/google-has-an-ios-6-maps-app-awaiting...
So the ball is in Apple's court now.


That's a rumor. On another site (the Loop) which has a 100% record of verifying the authenticity of Apple related rumors they are saying that rumor is false. Personally I hope Google do make their own mapping app because I support competition against monopoly.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by tanzam75 on Thu 20th Sep 2012 23:50 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19


If enough people complained, would they likely back down and go back to using Google Maps?


Rather unlikely.

Did Google switch back to Navteq Maps, after users complained that their maps had gotten worse after the switch to Tele Atlas? No!

Not only did they not go back to Navteq, but they then proceeded to ditch Tele Atlas as well, and switch to their own maps that are generated by machine-learning. This has led to more comprehensive coverage than could be achieved by sending humans out to drive and annotate the roads. But it has also led to some truly astonishing errors that are unique to Google Maps.

This is what happens when a company has bigger fish to fry. They allow strategic interests to prevail over the quality of the user's experience.

Edited 2012-09-20 23:51 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Stephen!
by kaiwai on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 03:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by Stephen!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If enough people complained, would they likely back down and go back to using Google Maps?


I'm assuming you're new to Apple. Lets remember one thing, Apple NEVER accepts that they're wrong unless there is a tsumani sized tidal wave coming towards them and they have no choice BUT to accept that they were wrong (but with some caveats when they do so). Apple have marked a new path forward and they'll move heaven and earth to ensure that this will work - without any possibility of returning to Google even temporarily. Best example, Final Cut Pro X and the ceasing of selling previous versions even though Final Cut Pro X was not feature complete (Apple promised to bring the missing features back in later updates and upgrades) they're maintained that Final Cut Pro X is the future and there is no temporary reprievement in the short term for those who need the older version.

Reply Score: 4

OpenTripPlanner Mobile
by DHofmann on Thu 20th Sep 2012 21:17 UTC
DHofmann
Member since:
2005-08-19
If Steve were alive...
by earksiinni on Thu 20th Sep 2012 22:40 UTC
earksiinni
Member since:
2009-03-27

Somehow, I suspect that if Steve Jobs were alive such a low quality maps app would never have been released.

Reply Score: 1

RE: If Steve were alive...
by dvhh on Fri 21st Sep 2012 06:55 UTC in reply to "If Steve were alive..."
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20
RE: If Steve were alive...
by Laurence on Fri 21st Sep 2012 10:04 UTC in reply to "If Steve were alive..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Somehow, I suspect that if Steve Jobs were alive such a low quality maps app would never have been released.

Jobs repeatedly allowed complete failures in technology. Despite popular belief amongst the iDiots, he wasn't a magician; he did sometimes misjudge the market ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: If Steve were alive...
by earksiinni on Fri 21st Sep 2012 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE: If Steve were alive..."
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

This isn't a failure to read the market. It's just insanely sloppy. Jobs' reign certainly produced flops (e.g., Apple TV), but they've always been buttoned up and dressed to the nines.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: If Steve were alive...
by Laurence on Fri 21st Sep 2012 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If Steve were alive..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

This isn't a failure to read the market. It's just insanely sloppy. Jobs' reign certainly produced flops (e.g., Apple TV), but they've always been buttoned up and dressed to the nines.

Lack of supporting floating point numbers in BASIC was though. Hence why Apple ][ ended up running MS BASIC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: If Steve were alive...
by earksiinni on Fri 21st Sep 2012 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If Steve were alive..."
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

...lol, OK.

Reply Score: 2

RE: If Steve were alive...
by kaiwai on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 03:54 UTC in reply to "If Steve were alive..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is it every time there is a monumental cockup there is always someone who will say, "If Steve Jobs was here none of this would have happened!" as if some how he was everything under him was sunshine and lolly pops. The only thing Steve Jobs has over Tim is the fact that Steve Jobs could spin a disaster into an opportunity; anyone remember Aperture when it was first released? that wasn't a failure to 'read the market' as someone else on the thread claimed but dropping the ball on quality. Same can be said for Final Cut Pro X, Pages/Numbers/Keynote pretty much left to rot on the vine after being neglected for years, then there was the MacBook Pro nVidia fiasco where Apple should have just replaced the laptops instad of replacing one faulty motherboard with another, then there were the PowerBook issues where one of the DIMM slots would go bad - I mean, I could go further and further back if you want.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: If Steve were alive...
by earksiinni on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE: If Steve were alive..."
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Good points, actually; I remember the Final Cut X disaster in particular. I retract my statement!

Reply Score: 2

Seriously...
by Mark0 on Thu 20th Sep 2012 23:57 UTC
Mark0
Member since:
2005-08-11

... this has to be one of the most embarassing release in recent times!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57517080-37/where-are-we-apples-m...

Edited 2012-09-20 23:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

to make more from the App Store
by gan17 on Fri 21st Sep 2012 00:33 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

A lot of people are saying that Apple intentionally left it half baked to encourage devs to "fill in the blanks" with apps, that way they could make more via the 30% cut they get from each app sale.

No idea if this is true, though.

One thing I do know is that this current iMaps thing sucks balls, worse so for those outside Yankland.

Personally, I hope enough people do complain to force Apple to backtrack to Google Maps, but I'm skeptical.

Edited 2012-09-21 00:33 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Bad Move
by parrotjoe on Fri 21st Sep 2012 00:40 UTC
parrotjoe
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple never should have released this. What an embarrassment! I really wonder now about the decision making there. The above poster is right - Jobs would never have done this. Apple said something about just getting started on Maps. That's not good enough at all. You simply do not release something like this.

Reply Score: 1

a bit of topic
by unclefester on Fri 21st Sep 2012 02:08 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

The demand for the iPhone 5 in Australia seems very underwhelming to me. My local Telstra store had three people waiting (for the launch) today. The Vodaphone and Optus store had zero apparent iPhone customers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: a bit of topic
by unclefester on Fri 21st Sep 2012 04:14 UTC in reply to "a bit of topic"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Update:

By 1pm the Telstra store "crowd" (three people) had dispersed. No one was actually buying the iPhone 5 - just looking.

fixed typo.

Edited 2012-09-21 04:15 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: a bit of topic
by D-Master-D on Fri 21st Sep 2012 08:24 UTC in reply to "a bit of topic"
D-Master-D Member since:
2012-04-05

No-one's lined up for iPhones at the telco retail stores since the first one officially available in Australia (the 3G in 2008).

Cast your eyes on the Apple Stores for the crazy lines.

Reply Score: 2

RE: a bit of topic
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 12:18 UTC in reply to "a bit of topic"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The demand for the iPhone 5 in Australia seems very underwhelming to me. My local Telstra store had three people waiting (for the launch) today. The Vodaphone and Optus store had zero apparent iPhone customers.


I think you may be venturing onto some very thin ice if you are trying to argue that demand for the iPhone 5 is poor. Very thin ice. Best to walk carefully back to firmer ground before it's too late.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/20/hundreds_line_up_as_austr...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: a bit of topic
by unclefester on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 03:13 UTC in reply to "RE: a bit of topic"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Hundreds of people were lined up at APPLE STORES. Many (if not most) of those people in the were involved in ambush marketing schemes.

However there was absolutely no reason to go to an Apple store because they could have bought a iPhone 5 at thousands of other licenced carrier outlets without queuing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: a bit of topic
by kaiwai on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 03:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: a bit of topic"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Hundreds of people were lined up at APPLE STORES. Many (if not most) of those people in the were involved in ambush marketing schemes.

However there was absolutely no reason to go to an Apple store because they could have bought a iPhone 5 at thousands of other licenced carrier outlets without queuing.


It is the whole hype atmosphere and drones that seem to have this fetish about waiting in line. Reminds me of concerts in NZ - why wait in line when you could be at your keyboard in a nice warm house ready to buy it on ticketmaster as soon as it appears on their website? it dumb founds me seeing these queues - and Apple users wonder why there is a cottage industry of mockage around such behaviour.

Reply Score: 5

"Stupid grudges"?
by abdavidson on Fri 21st Sep 2012 05:26 UTC
abdavidson
Member since:
2005-07-06

Given the figure seemingly bandied around about how much Google Maps on iOS has been costing Apple is around $2bn, it doesn't sound like THAT much of a "stupid grudge" to want to keep that money in house and develop a solution yourself.

But hey, there is absolutely no impartial commentary around this now it seems, so I'm sure everyone will carry on as they are.

Before any stupid accusations of being an "iSheep" or the like, I'm not saying the app is wonderful: it's woeful. I'm commenting purely on the rhetoric of the commentary wrapped around the actual news reportage.

Edited 2012-09-21 05:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: "Stupid grudges"?
by unclefester on Fri 21st Sep 2012 05:50 UTC in reply to ""Stupid grudges"?"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Given the figure seemingly bandied around about how much Google Maps on iOS has been costing Apple is around $2bn, it doesn't sound like THAT much of a "stupid grudge" to want to keep that money in house and develop a solution yourself.


It is obvious that no one ene bothered to even do basic QC testing before releasing this crap to market. You would expect a more polished mapping product on a $49 Chinese tablet.

The reality is that Apple is no longer a genuine technology company. They are now little more than a marketing and industrial design company like Dyson or Bang & Olufsen.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: "Stupid grudges"?
by koffie on Fri 21st Sep 2012 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE: "Stupid grudges"?"
koffie Member since:
2010-05-06

...

The reality is that Apple is no longer a genuine technology company. They are now little more than a marketing and industrial design company like Dyson or Bang & Olufsen.


That's why they're developing their own CPU's, production processes, keep pushing battery technology, were able to make their new phone ultra-thin and ultra-light, in the last few years pushed ultra-high resolution displays on both smartphones and desktop, and were able to make their mobile Safari a lot faster in the iOS6 release? Yup - nothing to do with technology, only marketing without any technology backing it ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: "Stupid grudges"?
by Laurence on Fri 21st Sep 2012 10:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "Stupid grudges"?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

That's why they're developing their own CPU's, production processes, keep pushing battery technology, were able to make their new phone ultra-thin and ultra-light, in the last few years pushed ultra-high resolution displays on both smartphones and desktop, and were able to make their mobile Safari a lot faster in the iOS6 release? Yup - nothing to do with technology, only marketing without any technology backing it ;)


The actual truth is somewhere in the middle. Apple do develop technologies, but they don't develop CPUs as such(they design the chips, Samsung / TI manufacturer them). Though that is nitpicking somewhat.

The screens comment isn't accurate though, iPhone screens are just Samsung displays and the same ones that feature in a number of devices - both before and since Apple hyped up high resolution displays.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: "Stupid grudges"?
by gan17 on Fri 21st Sep 2012 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: "Stupid grudges"?"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

The screens comment isn't accurate though, iPhone screens are just Samsung displays and the same ones that feature in a number of devices - both before and since Apple hyped up high resolution displays.

Actually, with regards to the iPhone 5;
The screen is supposed to be a Sharp design (possibly with input from Apple) and is manufactured by Sharp Corp, Japan Display Inc and LG Display, from what I've read. [/tangent]

Edited 2012-09-21 15:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RDF
by bitwelder on Fri 21st Sep 2012 06:58 UTC
bitwelder
Member since:
2010-04-27

iOS6 maps are *reality distortion field* at its best :-P

Reply Score: 9

My, my...
by Neolander on Fri 21st Sep 2012 09:08 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

When even John Gruber says, although subtly and while trying to dismiss Apple's responsibility as much as possible when doing so, that the new app is a piece of garbage, you know that Apple are in big trouble.

I am strongly advising my iDevice-using friends to hold on updating to iOS 6 for now. I am sure that the thing will improve over time, but right now, it sounds like a textbook example of shipping an unfinished update due to time constraints.

Edited 2012-09-21 09:11 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: My, my...
by brichpmr on Fri 21st Sep 2012 11:07 UTC in reply to "My, my..."
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

When even John Gruber says, although subtly and while trying to dismiss Apple's responsibility as much as possible when doing so, that the new app is a piece of garbage, you know that Apple are in big trouble.

I am strongly advising my iDevice-using friends to hold on updating to iOS 6 for now. I am sure that the thing will improve over time, but right now, it sounds like a textbook example of shipping an unfinished update due to time constraints.


I find IOS 6 on my iPhone 4S to work just fine, and the new Maps app functions, for me, just as well as the previous Google Maps. My Maps needs are likely different than some of yours...but, this is my experience across the big ditch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My, my...
by Neolander on Fri 21st Sep 2012 12:41 UTC in reply to "RE: My, my..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I find IOS 6 on my iPhone 4S to work just fine, and the new Maps app functions, for me, just as well as the previous Google Maps. My Maps needs are likely different than some of yours...but, this is my experience across the big ditch.

You may just have been lucky, as the errors reported elsewhere sound pretty serious.

http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/

Reminds me of the guy from the Loop saying the iOS 6 Maps works perfectly in Cupertino... Well, it shows that at least Apple employees HAVE tested this thing.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: My, my...
by brichpmr on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My, my..."
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"I find IOS 6 on my iPhone 4S to work just fine, and the new Maps app functions, for me, just as well as the previous Google Maps. My Maps needs are likely different than some of yours...but, this is my experience across the big ditch.

You may just have been lucky, as the errors reported elsewhere sound pretty serious.

http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/

Reminds me of the guy from the Loop saying the iOS 6 Maps works perfectly in Cupertino... Well, it shows that at least Apple employees HAVE tested this thing.
"

Years of experience with IOS informs my opinion that luck has little to do with my satisfaction level. I've tested the new Maps app with the multiple destinations I have used with Google Maps in the past, and find that the new app is certainly a work in progress; yet it works just as well for me, here in the Eastern USA.

Reply Score: 0

RE: My, my...
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 22:31 UTC in reply to "My, my..."
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

you know that Apple are in big trouble.


I think that is unlikely, What is very likely is that the iPhone 5 will sell more and at a faster rate than it's predecessors, that the iPhone will supplant the iPhone 4 as the best selling handset globally, that a majority of iOS users will upgrade to iOS 6 very quickly (it's already passed 15% after just a couple of days compared to Android 4.1 which has only inched to 1.5% in three months), that Apple will show strong growth this quarter and have another record breaking holiday quarter and that Apple will incrementally improve maps and catch Google faster than Thom thinks it will and that in the next few weeks and months there will be a slew of interesting and innovative mapping apps released on iOS. In two years iOS will be the mapping platform.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: My, my...
by Neolander on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE: My, my..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think that is unlikely, What is very likely is that the iPhone 5 will sell more and at a faster rate than it's predecessors, that the iPhone will supplant the iPhone 4 as the best selling handset globally, that a majority of iOS users will upgrade to iOS 6 very quickly (it's already passed 15% after just a couple of days compared to Android 4.1 which has only inched to 1.5% in three months), that Apple will show strong growth this quarter and have another record breaking holiday quarter and that Apple will incrementally improve maps and catch Google faster than Thom thinks it will and that in the next few weeks and months there will be a slew of interesting and innovative mapping apps released on iOS. In two years iOS will be the mapping platform.

Please, calm down, and make proper use of paragraphs and punctuation. When you are typing with too much religious hatred in your mind, your posts tend to become unreadable... And also to, intentionally or not, miss the point that one was trying to make !

So, well, I'm gonna start over more slowly.

It is not the first time that Apple has launched an unfinished product. One can, as an example, think of the Apple III, the last few releases of Mac OS Classic and the first few releases of OS X, iOS 4 on old hardware, those insufficiently cooled Macbook Pros that burned their GPUs, or the iPhone 4's defective antennas. Each time, it has sent them into quite a bit of trouble, but generally not financial one.

That is because Apple have managed to build themselves an extremely loyal user base, which tends to forgive such mistakes. The innocent ones will buy the product without knowing and convince themselves that it must be good, since it comes from Apple. The smart ones will read reviews, think "Heh, nobody is perfect", and wait for the next one or buy from someone else in the meantime. And the stupid ones will knowingly buy a defective product, full of hope that things will improve over time as they give Apple a financial incentive to leave it as is.

But such forgiveness only lasts so long, and that's what brings me to the trouble that Apple are in. Whether they choose to fix existing devices or not is up to them, in the past they have mostly left them as is in favour of improving the next generation. However, make no mistake, this "next gen" better be a serious improvement.

And that is where problems start for Apple: normally, they would just need to spend extra effort on hardware and software design so as to avoid making the same mistakes. And, simultaneously, add up some impressive new features and spend more on marketing so as to restore their brand image. But this time, they have a problem, which is that their failed product cannot reasonably be fixed in a single iOS release cycle. A mapping service database has just too much inertia to be fixed in a single year with Apple's usual closed and secretive development practices. No matter how much engineers they put on it, they won't manage.

So, what are the options for them ?
-Silently switch back to Google Maps' databases and sell it as "Apple's new and improved super-secret database". Honestly, I wish they won't : Google control too much already, and a bit of competition wouldn't be a bad thing. It also seems alien to Apple's culture to give control back on a part of their product that they have acquired.
-Launch a public campaign, asking every iOS user to report whatever mapping issue they can find, perhaps providing financial incentives for that using all that cash that they have recently extorted from Samsung. This could work pretty well, but that would be indirectly admitting that Maps is still under beta test after launching it as final. Apple are generally too cocky to do that.
-Come up with something unrelated to maps, that is truly impressive enough to make people forget about the terrible quality of their Maps application. There's nothing incompatible with Apple's culture there, so perhaps that's what is gonna happen. It would be sad, though.

In any case, Apple have a lot of work to do, and this is what I mean by trouble. For the past two iPhone releases, they have been resting on their laurels, rehashing the same old hardware designs and playing catch-up on the software and power front. Now, they have trapped themselves in an awkward situation, where they will have to actually innovate to survive. And that, in turn, means that highly interesting times are ahead for the tech world.

I'm just sad at the perspective that Apple, if they choose to pursue their in-house mapping strategy, will likely make sure that no one outside of their ecosystem will benefit from it. The current trend in the computing world to hide every important information within the in-house silos of a few big companies is frightening.

Edited 2012-09-22 08:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: My, my...
by flypig on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My, my..."
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

A mapping service database has just too much inertia to be fixed in a single year with Apple's usual closed and secretive development practices. No matter how much engineers they put on it, they won't manage.


There are actually quite a few different mapping databases that Apple could use other than TomTom's and Google's that they've used so far. I'd have thought they could switch to one of the other ones if users feel the current data isn't up to scratch.

It's not impossible to imagine they'd move back to Google's database either. They don't seem to have any intrinsic issue using services from other companies that directly compete (e.g. Samsung).

Finally, they've already acquired companies to provide data for their maps (e.g. C3 technologies) and no doubt have enough money to collect their own data.

I'm not saying any of this will actually happen, but if the core technology of their mapping application is good, then I've no doubt Apple has avenues for fixing the data.

[Edited to fix typo.]

Edited 2012-09-22 09:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: My, my...
by Neolander on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My, my..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

There are actually quite a few different mapping databases that Apple could use other than TomTom's and Google's that they've used so far. I'd have thought they could switch to one of the other ones if users feel the current data isn't up to scratch.

Now, I have to put a big red "your mileage may vary" warning here, but in my experience, mapping is one of those things that few companies manage to get right, probably because of how much the underlying infrastructure costs and how large of a user base it takes to fix issues.

As an example, here in France, if you don't like GMaps, the main competitor is Mappy, based on GeoSignal and TeleAtlas. While the website itself has become relatively decent lately, the maps still have some serious coverage problems as soon as you leave the big countries and cities. Even within them, it will have a hard time doing things like locating a building on a long street.

For a comparison, here's the place where my grandmother lives as seen by Mappy and GMaps respectively

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/lucaymappy.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/lucaygmaps.png/

And for a more extreme example, let's leave France for a while and look at the west side of Yaounde, Cameroon, Africa

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/195/yaoundemappy.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/210/yaoundegmaps.png/

(notice how both services have some issues with basic geographic features like rivers)

Perhaps Apple could try to aggregate multiple minor maps providers, though. But finding out which is right anytime there is a conflict will probably still be an awful lot of work, not to mention the difficulties of making multiple incompatible databases cohabitate with each other.

It's not impossible to imagine they'd move back to Google's database either. They don't seem to have any intrinsic issue using services from other companies that directly compete (e.g. Samsung).

Even when it comes to going back to them after having done their own thing ? The only example which I can think of in Apple's history is the switch to Intel and EFI-based firmwares on their desktop and laptop offerings.

Finally, they've already acquired companies to provide data for their maps (e.g. C3 technologies) and no doubt have enough money to collect their own data.

Well, if a company can compete head-on on this front with Google, it's certainly a giant with huge piles of money like Apple or Microsoft. Still, throwing money at big projects is not always sufficient to make them as successful as competition, as Bing shows in the realm of web search. Perhaps this is one area where Apple forcing users to use their own maps makes sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: My, my...
by flypig on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My, my..."
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

Now, I have to put a big red "your mileage may vary" warning here, but in my experience, mapping is one of those things that few companies manage to get right, probably because of how much the underlying infrastructure costs and how large of a user base it takes to fix issues.


I'm sure you're right. I honestly can't claim to know much about the details of negotiating contracts for worldwide maps, but I have no doubt it's difficult to get right.

You provide some convincing examples though, and it does surprise me how much variation there is between coverage in the maps you show.

Perhaps Apple could try to aggregate multiple minor maps providers, though. But finding out which is right anytime there is a conflict will probably still be an awful lot of work, not to mention the difficulties of making multiple incompatible databases cohabitate with each other.


They could do this, or they could use a single database from a single major provider. Again, I don't know the technical details, but I wouldn't expect it makes sense to use multiple providers for different features in the same country.

Using different providers in different countries might make sense (e.g. Ordinance Survey in the UK). Some of Apple's mapping woes look like they stem from using multiple data sources to me:

http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/32047865150/apple-didnt-l...

http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/32050776826/evidently-kev...

Maybe different service providers were cheaper for different kinds of data? If so, I expect Apple could fix this by spending more money (which they have). Surely TomTom don't have these problems on their car SatNavs, do they?

"It's not impossible to imagine they'd move back to Google's database either.

Even when it comes to going back to them after having done their own thing ? The only example which I can think of in Apple's history is the switch to Intel and EFI-based firmwares on their desktop and laptop offerings.
"

I'm afraid I honestly don't know enough about Apple's history to give examples, but you could well be right. I guess they did it with Microsoft (Internet Explorer), Java (sort of) and Steve Jobs!

I agree it would seem like an odd move though. An admission of defeat.

Well, if a company can compete head-on on this front with Google, it's certainly a giant with huge piles of money like Apple or Microsoft. Still, throwing money at big projects is not always sufficient to make them as successful as competition, as Bing shows in the realm of web search. Perhaps this is one area where Apple forcing users to use their own maps makes sense.


I'd agree, it's not just a question of money. But Google managed it of course, and so did Nokia.

It makes sense for people to be angry about the current situation. Apple have released an update that removes functionality. However, I'd be surprised if Apple can't fix this (it's not like a hardware problem). If they don't, it exposes the lie that they value good products more than money. If they do, it will be forgotten about by most people very quickly.

Sorry for the long post.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: My, my...
by Neolander on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My, my..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I'm sure you're right. I honestly can't claim to know much about the details of negotiating contracts for worldwide maps, but I have no doubt it's difficult to get right.

You provide some convincing examples though, and it does surprise me how much variation there is between coverage in the maps you show.

If you have family on the countryside or in lesser-known countries, you can try it too ! I find it to be a good benchmark for mapping services, as these parts of the world are generally taken care of last and in a fashion where flaws are more apparent than in big cities...

One does indeed have to wonder what kind of technical or political problems prevent digital mapping services from buying a license on the data used by paper road maps and digitalizing it. As unreadable as these can get, they do tend to have impressive coverage of even the smallest trail in the woods, and I can't think of stuff in them that would confuse image analysis algorithms.

"Perhaps Apple could try to aggregate multiple minor maps providers, though. But finding out which is right anytime there is a conflict will probably still be an awful lot of work, not to mention the difficulties of making multiple incompatible databases cohabitate with each other."

They could do this, or they could use a single database from a single major provider. Again, I don't know the technical details, but I wouldn't expect it makes sense to use multiple providers for different features in the same country.

Using different providers in different countries might make sense (e.g. Ordinance Survey in the UK). Some of Apple's mapping woes look like they stem from using multiple data sources to me:

http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/32047865150/apple-didnt-l...

http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/32050776826/evidently-kev...

I have recently learned that Apple do indeed already use data from multiple providers. It is, however, unclear how they do it.

On a review of iOS 6 at http://www.anandtech.com/show/6302/apple-ios-6-review-maps-investig... , the editor has found out in the Acknowledgement part of the soft that Apple use data from TomTom, Acxiom, AND, CoreLogic, DigitalGlobe, DMTI, Intermap, Urban Mapping, Waze, Yelp, Flickr, NASA, OpenStreetMap, US Census, US Geological Survey, and the US National Mapping Agency. At least in the US.

Maybe different service providers were cheaper for different kinds of data? If so, I expect Apple could fix this by spending more money (which they have). Surely TomTom don't have these problems on their car SatNavs, do they?

I wouldn't know, having never used one of these...

"Even when it comes to going back to them after having done their own thing ? The only example which I can think of in Apple's history is the switch to Intel and EFI-based firmwares on their desktop and laptop offerings."

I'm afraid I honestly don't know enough about Apple's history to give examples, but you could well be right. I guess they did it with Microsoft (Internet Explorer), Java (sort of) and Steve Jobs!

I agree it would seem like an odd move though. An admission of defeat.

As far as I know, Apple did not have a web browser ready when they started to bundle IE with Mac OS, and they have not released something that directly competes with Java either. You may be right about Steve, though ! ;)

I'd agree, it's not just a question of money. But Google managed it of course, and so did Nokia.

While Nokia Maps is a very nice piece of software, its database (as probed using maps.nokia.com ) seems not to be so impressive on the countryside.

I just tested the two locations mentioned above on it, and it seems to perform as good as Mappy in rural France, while Yaounde, on its side, is just represented as a large crossroads. Which is a bit weak for a capital city to say the list.

( Nokia's map of Yaoundé : http://maps.nokia.com/3.8692661,11.5355997,14,0,0,normal.day
Google's version : https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=Yaound%C3%A9,+Centre,+Cameroun... )

Sorry for the long post.

No issue, I have this tendency to write small novels in this comment section myself...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: My, my...
by flypig on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: My, my..."
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

One does indeed have to wonder what kind of technical or political problems prevent digital mapping services from buying a license on the data used by paper road maps and digitalizing it.

While doing a search I noticed a number of research papers and patents about automatically generating data from satellite imagery. I don't know to what extent these technologies are used though.

I thought the following article was particularly interesting. It's about Google's project "Ground Truth" for building maps: http://tinyurl.com/cl85h5l

Interestingly, the article supports your claim that building a comparable mapping database to Google's would be a very hard task: "I came away convinced that the geographic data Google has assembled is not likely to be matched by any other company."

"Surely TomTom don't have these problems on their car SatNavs, do they?

I wouldn't know, having never used one of these...
"
That's too bad. I was hoping you might be able to enlighten me!

As far as I know, Apple did not have a web browser ready when they started to bundle IE with Mac OS

True, but they did have a previous relationship with Microsoft, which I believe was destroyed and then rebuilt for commercial reasons.

and they have not released something that directly competes with Java either.

I was under the impression the JVM on OS X used to be an Apple product?

While Nokia Maps is a very nice piece of software, its database (as probed using maps.nokia.com ) seems not to be so impressive on the countryside.

It's clear Nokia Maps are bad compared to Google for the places you gave (and no doubt many others). The difference is quite startling. However, in some places the balance is the other way:

Compare http://goo.gl/maps/xcl1Z with http://nok.it/FmcWg

Just to be clear though, I'm not suggesting NavTeq is better (or necessarily worse) than Google. But there are a lot of impressive mapping companies, ideas and datasets out there, and the mapping landscape is changing rapidly (so to speak). I'm excited to see all of the new developments that are happening in this area.

Reply Score: 2

v It's not only Apple's fault
by wocowboy on Fri 21st Sep 2012 10:26 UTC
RE: It's not only Apple's fault
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Sep 2012 10:34 UTC in reply to "It's not only Apple's fault"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

TomTom is open source?

News to me.

Reply Score: 3

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I think the confusion arises from Apple using OSM in one of their apps a while back. Though, who knows where the data is from. Just because the engine is based on one technology, doesn't mean all of the data comes from the same source. You'd think TomTom would have better maps of your home town, given they are Dutch. Ironic?

Reply Score: 2

brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

I think the confusion arises from Apple using OSM in one of their apps a while back. Though, who knows where the data is from. Just because the engine is based on one technology, doesn't mean all of the data comes from the same source. You'd think TomTom would have better maps of your home town, given they are Dutch. Ironic?


According to the IOS6 review, there are multiple data sources utilized by Apple for its Maps:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6302/apple-ios-6-review-maps-investig...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: It's not only Apple's fault
by wocowboy on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not only Apple's fault"
wocowboy Member since:
2006-06-01

TomTom is not the only source for this new mapping application. OpenStreetMap is also being used to a great degree, and it IS open source, crowd sourced, and all that. As are other tools they are using.

Reply Score: 0

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

TomTom is not the only source for this new mapping application. OpenStreetMap is also being used to a great degree, and it IS open source, crowd sourced, and all that. As are other tools they are using.

Is there a source for that ? So far, although people like Tony Swash have been repeatedly claiming it, the only proof of Apple making heavy use of OSM which I have seen was about iPhoto, not this new Maps app. Anandtech's review rather makes it sound like OSM is one provider among many others, not a central part of the iMaps ecosystem.

Edited 2012-09-23 08:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's not only Apple's fault
by Soulbender on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 06:41 UTC in reply to "It's not only Apple's fault"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wait, so it isn't Apple's fault that they released a map app without doing any QA at all?
How could that possibly be Google's fault that Apple didn't do their job?

I suppose Google raising the cost of its API for maps very significantly had nothing to do with Apple's decision?


They did?

Apple is not the only manufacturer to contemplate removing Google Maps from their phones, so please don't make out like it is all on Apple again.


We haven't seen those other manufacturers release substandard apps.

Apple's mapping application is based on an OPEN SOURCE project


So what? That doesn't automagically make the app good.

Reply Score: 3

redsteakraw
Member since:
2009-09-22

I know that the new apple maps are using OpenStreetMap(OSM) data. As a contributor I am happy but I also want to stress all the problems can be fixed and ironed out by anyone. MapQuest started using OSM maps and they included a bug feature as well as an edditor on the site to allow for users to fix the little bug in their area right away. What I don't know about the map implementation of Apple is how up to date is their data, is it a fork of OSM(if it is they can got f#$% themselves) and weather they communicated that the map is editable fixable by practically anyone and that there are ways of reporting bugs that other OSM mappers would be happy to see. Furthermore if they are syncing up with OSM it would be nice to know how often they are.

In defence of OSM it can be even more detailed than Google maps and google maps it self has plenty of bugs and inaccurate information it self. The fact that anyone could get involved contribute and not have your contributions owned and exploited by a corporation is another plus. OSM has helped save lives in Haiti and is the standard crisis map since everyone can contribute and edit it on the fly and there are plenty of humanitarian mappers. Having access to the data separates it from other maps because any interested person can use their software stack and data to render their own custom map allowing for interesting projects to arise like wheelmap a map for people in wheelchairs focused on improving the lives of handicapped individuals. Also there is the OpenCycleMap that is focused on bicycles allowing for cyclist to plan easier more effective routes. So please don't judge OSM too harshly it is a very important map that you the people can control, please help make it even better.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What I don't know about the map implementation of Apple is how up to date is their data, is it a fork of OSM(if it is they can got f#$% themselves)


I seem to remember that Apple was using OSM previously in some other application (iPhoto?), and there was some controversy because the data was used without proper attribution. And in coverage of that controversy, I thought I saw it mentioned that Apple was using old OSM data specifically to get around the attribution requirement (something about the old data being covered an older license that didn't require attribution).

Sadly, I can't find the details anymore, so grains of salt & all that.

EDIT: found it:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?510047

It's speculative, but that may still turn out to be the explanation for some of the issues (using/forking old data to get license requirements).

Edited 2012-09-21 19:36 UTC

Reply Score: 4

v Where have all the principles gone?
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 16:18 UTC
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

While I try to tolerate your typical insanity with all apple related topics, I cannot stand when you use open source and apple in the same sentence. Throw in the monopoly for a good measure and you have just infuriated me. Apple is the most hypocritical, unethical and deceiving company there is PERIOD Examples are abundant, from reneging on their warranties, lying to consumers about security, pretending to be morally conservative and removing naked imagery while allowing playboy app to remain, shunning app devs left and right...

And now we get to open source sticker. Apple absolutely hates open source! It goes against everything that apple stands for. But since they lack resources and expertise they have to consume open source. If it wasn't for gpl apple would contribute NOTHING unless they get paid ... a lot. Furthermore apple does everything they can to stifle progress by litigating, subverting (html5 standards adoption) etc.

So tony take a pill a control your spinning attempts

Reply Score: 6

Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Apple hatred is disease that fills the head with a sort intellectual pus. You do not make a single attempt to actually argue any points, nothing to say about Google's map monopoly, just shouting fact free insults about Apple.

"Doctor" are you going to deny that:

-Apple has reneged on the applecare on the account of the macbook being exposed to smoke even though it is not stated that it would void the warranty?

-Playboy app has survived purging of app store?

-Techies were told not to disclose infection with malware, furthermore not to even fix it unless explicitly asked for?

-Apple has sent threatening letters to people with overheating issues on their ipods?


As I said intellectual pus. I could point out that MacOSX sits on an open source kernel, that Apple deliberately chose to build it's browser technology using open source and that the resulting Web Kit is used by Google amongst others, I could point you at this page http://www.apple.com/opensource/ which confirms that Apple is one of the largest, if not the largest, distributor of open source software on the planet. But we both know it won't make any difference to how you think (using that term loosely) about Apple because facts count for nothing compared to the power of your hatred of Apple. Pus is bad for your brain.


"Doctor" name one open source project that apple doesn't use and/or is with a lesser license then gpl where they have contributed?? There will be none.

I wish I could refer to you as “intellectual pus”, but in essence you are just an ass

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

which confirms that Apple is one of the largest, if not the largest, distributor of open source software on the planet.

How's that RDF working out for you? Ever heard of how much Samsung sells Android devices? Or that Windows 7 has a crapload of opensource stuff in it?

Most of iOS is proprietary, btw. Even most of the kernel.

Reply Score: 2

flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

Does anybody deny that Google's share of mobile mapping calls is at least 80%, and is probably higher.


I really am not sure where this figure comes from. Could you provide a source?

The majority of the analysis that you see on tech sites focusses on smartphones and ignores feature phones. It focusses primarily on Western markets and ignores the rest of the world. It concentrates almost exclusively on shipments rather than phones in use.

This has a tendency to inflate the perception of Android's dominance. It may well be true that Google will have a near monopoly on mapping soon, but I'm not convinced it's the case right now.

I can't find actual figures myself; the closest I could find was the following article from July 2012 for Europe and the US stating that "only about half of mobile users in both regions own [a smartphone]".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/27/smartphones-iphone...

A lot of the other featurephones out there will have mapping software that won't be Google maps.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Apple moving away from Google to OpenStreetMap data would be a very good thing if it improves openness. I also think it's a shame if Google are becoming more closed over their mapping or they squeeze out other players.

In the longer term, this move by Apple may be good for both their customers and mapping in general.

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Apple moving away from Google to OpenStreetMap data would be a very good thing if it improves openness. I also think it's a shame if Google are becoming more closed over their mapping or they squeeze out other players.

In the longer term, this move by Apple may be good for both their customers and mapping in general.


It's a shame that most mapping data is proprietary and licensed. Unfortunately creating maps is no YouTube'ing affair. But it could take off if someone made it as fun.

Reply Score: 2

flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

It's a shame that most mapping data is proprietary and licensed.

Yes, I totally agree. In the UK there was a big push to get the Ordnance Survey (the government's mapping department) to release its map data for free, which eventually succeeded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/01/ordnance-survey-ma...

Apparently OS data is being used in Apple's software.

Unfortunately creating maps is no YouTube'ing affair. But it could take off if someone made it as fun.

I guess this is what OpenStreetMap is trying to achieve, and apparently succeeding up to a point. I'd be impressed if they ever reach the same quantity of contributions as YouTube, but I suspect technology holds the answer. I agree the easier (e.g. automatic GPS-enabled mapping), more social and more fun it is, the more likely people are to contribute.

Here's an article on the topic I thought was interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/28/openstreetmap-g...

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Google has a monopoly on mobile mapping.

A) Apple has done nothing to break Google's best in category product dominance. Arguably, they only attracted attention that only Google can make decent mapping solution today
B) If this was about monopoly, then Apple would have made their solution much more open then it is now, to counterbalance the bad quality of the maps.
C) You're a fanboy who's defending Apple. I suspected that you would bring better arguments. But it seems that most can't go past the "it just works" when it does not...

PS: Google is not the owner of the actual maps, they license them.

Reply Score: 2

maps.google.com?
by vault on Fri 21st Sep 2012 19:48 UTC
vault
Member since:
2005-09-15

So... I'm not a heavy maps user so maybe I'm missing something important here, but what exactly is preventing people from bookmarking maps.google.com in mobile Safari and using that instead? It seems to offer about all the features that were previously available.

Do people REALLY need an "app" for everything now days, or is it something else?

Reply Score: 2

RE: maps.google.com?
by brichpmr on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 12:42 UTC in reply to "maps.google.com?"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

So... I'm not a heavy maps user so maybe I'm missing something important here, but what exactly is preventing people from bookmarking maps.google.com in mobile Safari and using that instead? It seems to offer about all the features that were previously available.

Do people REALLY need an "app" for everything now days, or is it something else?


I have actually done just that to compare the Google web maps with the new IOS6 Maps. In my experience, the new native Apple iteration has more fluid interface, just as good turn by turn directions and far superior and up to date satellite data for the locations I have tested. Now, I didn't have any dislike for the previous Google Map in IOS5, but the new app has excellent potential to blow Google out of the water, IMO.

Reply Score: 0

RE: maps.google.com?
by Bobthearch on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 14:45 UTC in reply to "maps.google.com?"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Do people REALLY need an "app" for everything now days, or is it something else?


Two reasons come to mind, how apps in general (I have no experience with iOS) could be superior or preferred to online access:

- Integration with the device hardware. GPS, compass, camera, etc.

- Functional without network connection.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: maps.google.com?
by vault on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE: maps.google.com?"
vault Member since:
2005-09-15

Frankly, I don't think those are relevant for iOS. For one, google web page seems to have no problems with accessing native Location Services (if you allow it), and second - the maps app needs online connection to download maps on the fly, it always did.

See, that's what irks me about all those apps. Most of them do nothing that a web page can't do. Wikipedia app? It does the same thing as Wikipedia web page (and the page has a mobile layout already). IMDB app? Same thing. When I visit some web forum, it prompts me that there is an app for it. Why? What's the point? Why would I download an app when I already have the forum right in front of my eyes...

It may be true that there are thousands of apps in app store, but from what I found, most of them seem to be just front-ends for already available web services.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: maps.google.com?
by Bobthearch on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: maps.google.com?"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

With Google Maps you absolutely can download map data to use when offline. Around here public wi-fi is scarce, and cell phone coverage isn't great either.

Does the new Apple Maps program have a Street View feature like Google Maps? I use that more than satellite view or many other map features.

Reply Score: 2

RE: maps.google.com?
by JAlexoid on Mon 24th Sep 2012 09:24 UTC in reply to "maps.google.com?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The maps API available to apps is as broken as the maps app. No maps.google.com is going to help there.

Reply Score: 2

Interesting Apple maps FAQ
by Tony Swash on Fri 21st Sep 2012 22:51 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22
RE: Interesting Apple maps FAQ
by gan17 on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 03:21 UTC in reply to "Interesting Apple maps FAQ"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

So, if this iMaps app is supposed to get better over time as Apple gets more usage reports from iOS users, can we assume that only first-world countries will be properly mapped, since very few people in developing countries can afford iDevices? Can we also assume that places like Detroit won't get much mapping outside areas frequented by Ford and GM upper management types? Apple hates the poor, after all, hence why there’s no “entry” level iPhone, or they just throw the old models to poor people once the rich are bored with them, old models that probably don’t support Maps.

Tbh, I don't really care about mapping that much. I drive most places if work is involved, and the sat-nav in the car tramples over any "e-maps" app (she sounds better too, for my car at least). I suppose it's useful for people who tour around or depend on public transport a lot, in which case Apple has to improve this fast (much faster than it takes to release a new version of iOS) and/or not disallow third-party mapping applications in the App Store for people who need alternatives at the same time. Last thing they'd want is a rich person driving into a pond and drowning.

Some of the oil-paintings do look artsy, I have to say. I like that the app is eccentric. A trait that modern day rich people seem to have lost, sadly.

Edited 2012-09-22 03:41 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Interesting Apple maps FAQ
by sakeniwefu on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 03:35 UTC in reply to "Interesting Apple maps FAQ"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Nice astroturf Q&A. It could be that Google pays you so we all think Apple is paying you to post this crap. Maybe this is part of Microsoft's job interview process? Alas, we will never know for sure.

The app as it has been released is completely unacceptable as a product. People are relying on the GPS mapping abilities of their phones and sub-tablets to find their way.

It's 1:00 AM and you want to go back to your bussiness hotel and the app leads you into a dangerous neigborhood, is Apple going to pay for your funeral expenses?

My only Apple product is an iPod touch which isn't affected by this because the app is useless without a GPS and a steady 3G connection, but I certainly won't be upgrading to iOS 6 if this is Apple's new idea of Quality Control.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting Apple maps FAQ
by Soulbender on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 06:52 UTC in reply to "Interesting Apple maps FAQ"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Is it really that difficult to admit that Apple screwed up?
This whole Spin Doctor thing is embarrassing. Just admit it's a screw-up and move on.

From the FAQ:

Waited for what? For Google to strengthen its chokehold on a key iOS service?


Yeah, because releasing a shitty app that drives your customers to use the very competitor you want to get away from is such a brilliant business decision.

Edited 2012-09-22 06:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Simvcity
by Soulbender on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 06:35 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

It's just like how my maps in SimCity used to look
http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10013873-9.html

Reply Score: 3

RE: Simvcity
by zima on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 22:33 UTC in reply to "Simvcity"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I long for a mapping service that uses SimCity visual style... (or that of GTA)

Reply Score: 2

Let's wait for commercials
by biffuz on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 15:20 UTC
biffuz
Member since:
2006-03-27

I cannot wait to see the first subdle comparative commercials from Samsung "... and the S3 will always bring you back home." ;)

Reply Score: 3

buggy iOS maps?
by macUser on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 16:52 UTC
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15

WTF is Apple pulling with iCloud? I've talked to three people whose migration to iCloud deleted their entire address book. These are people who don't use a computer often and certainly don't sync their phones to anything. Post-PC era? Bullshit!

Reply Score: 2

two more fails
by unclefester on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 04:24 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Two more failures:

1. It seems that up to 80% of black iPhone units come pre-scratched.

2. Apple has also infringed the trademarked Swiss railway clock design.

This is rapidly turning from triumph to disaster.

Reply Score: 2

RE: two more fails
by Soulbender on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 07:25 UTC in reply to "two more fails"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

1. It seems that up to 80% of black iPhone units come pre-scratched.


Just like stonewashed jeans that's a feature. It allows the hipsters to pretend they've owned the new phone before it was even released. Maximum coolness.

2. Apple has also infringed the trademarked Swiss railway clock design.


You got it all wrong. They're paying homage to it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: two more fails
by unclefester on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE: two more fails"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Just like stonewashed jeans that's a feature. It allows the hipsters to pretend they've owned the new phone before it was even released. Maximum coolness.

Don't laugh but many of the iPhools really do consider the scratches to be feature.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: two more fails
by JAlexoid on Mon 24th Sep 2012 09:04 UTC in reply to "RE: two more fails"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You got it all wrong. They're paying homage to it.


And Samsung were paying homage to Apple! I never thought about that...

the clock icon in iOS 6 on the iPad is a blatant copy of a Hans Hilfiker design to which both the trademark and copyright is owned by the Swiss Federal Railways service.

Reply Score: 2

Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Turns out Google maps in China are crappy and Apple's new maps are much better.

http://anthonydrendel.com/blog/2012/9/24/ios-maps-and-china.html

It seems like people really hate the new Maps in iOS 6. Now, I'm not disputing that Maps does give a lot of strange results to a lot of people all around the world, but for a large, large number of people, iOS 6 Maps has been a huge improvement over Google Maps. I'm talking about those of us who live in China (you know, the place with 1.3+ billion people and the second-largest economy in the world). Google Maps was always pretty terrible here. In the big cities and tourist centers, it was passable. Once you left China's large metropolises, however, you were pretty much on your own. You could usually see expressways, highways, and even a lot of smaller roads, but there were very, very few shops, restaurants, banks, ATMs, etc. listed. That has changed with iOS 6. Apple has chosen AutoNavi to provide map services within China. That was a smart move, because AutoNavi is a local Chinese company that provides very detailed maps of China. Google was never going to be able to map China as well as it has other parts of the globe because the Chinese government doesn't trust the motives of foreign companies—and it especially doesn't trust Google.

Reply Score: 2