I wonder just how much of this stuff/tech is actually from Google seeing as there is an awful lot of copyright and data copyright for people other than Google on almost EVERY section of that first video?
I'm guessing, like Apple, most of it's bought in and not the implied "invented at Google".
Standard response 642, straight out of the Android shill handbook.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
Standard response 642, straight out of the Android shill handbook.
Well he was just responding to standard response 358 out of iphone handbook
"Android is just ripping off "insert feature" from iOS"
On another note, at the end of the day. To the NORMAL person (90% of iphone buyers, those that have never even heard of what an A5 chip is) buying an iphone, the fact of the matter is if the mapping app that comes with the phone is good enough (gives turn by turn and tell you where the nearest gas station is), they will never use anything else. Apple know that. They don't NEED to map out the inside of every shopping mall. All of those are awesome features to have, but unless you ever used an android phone you won't even know it exists, and hence wouldn't care about it.
Bottom line, Apple releases a 'good enough app' that does its PRIMARY function (get you from point A to point B), they win.
Bottom line, "if" Apple makes Apple iMAPple 12-D Mappy maps the DEFAULT map app on the iPhone they win the audience they want, even if it's not as good.
heh, mapple.
That's a very good point. I have to admit that while I find Street View occasionally useful, and this 3D thing looks pretty cool, I like Google Maps because the standard 2D maps are so damn readable. That's the thing that needs to be at least as good or better if an alternative to Google Maps is to do well.
Everything beyond the 2D maps is bells and whistles.....
For mobile however, your wants couldn't be farther from the norm. The one "must have" and most popular feature for maps on mobile devices is actually street view. Second would be turn by turn navigation. Also, 2D maps are 2D maps, they are all about as readable as each other and the data has been around for years and years. Accuracy is more important to the average end user in that situation.
If Apple can demonstrate that it's maps have the same information and the same or better accuracy rate than Google's that's a win. If they can also (rather crucially) find a way to replace street view with the 3D view then they will have a lock. Without a street view replacement a *lot* of people are going to go with the Google alternative instead.
If you look closely at Google's presentation, the 3D looks rather jaggy and probably is just a blur at street level. This doesn't matter because they have the street view database to compensate/replace that data. If Apple breaks with Google however, chances are they lose street view and if they can't replace it (presumably by being far more accurate in 3D than Google) then they might be in trouble.
banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe
banned: patpatpat, TEKSTUD, Rot'nApple, JerrySwitched26, iSheldon, DaHarder, Flaneur, Pendergast, thataveragejoe
Really the most exciting part of the announcement was the downloadable maps, not the 3d feature.
I agree. What does 3D or any of these other fancy features mean to you when you're heading into an area of spotty or no data coverage to access them?
I think the downloadable maps is a great step. Hopefully Apple will allow this as well. If not, I'm sure Google will be submitting a new Google Maps app to the App Store. I don't see why (or even how) Apple could not approve it unless it somehow violates the terms of service. There are, after all, other mapping applications already. Frankly, I don't think Apple would block it.
It's a massive, complex 3D world to swoop around in. A lot of polygons, a lot of textures. It has to be very, very well organized to run without any hickups, streaming map data on the fly from the servers and getting them into the app with truly multithreaded and optimised code. For instance Google Earth on iPhone is a horrible example of a map app, and it's even without complex 3D geometry. Very poor performance, and user experience. It's a poorly written app.
Apple's engineers has to deliver a first class app.
Siri has lots of room for improvement, but I find it very useful as-is. For dictating quick emails, text messages, reminders and to-do/shopping lists it easily beats thumb typing.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I agree...But people really thought (think?) Siri is AI and had some seriously Star Trek esque high hopes for it.
I agree. What does 3D or any of these other fancy features mean to you when you're heading into an area of spotty or no data coverage to access them?
I think the downloadable maps is a great step. Hopefully Apple will allow this as well. If not, I'm sure Google will be submitting a new Google Maps app to the App Store. I don't see why (or even how) Apple could not approve it unless it somehow violates the terms of service. There are, after all, other mapping applications already. Frankly, I don't think Apple would block it.
I use Navigon with about a gig and a half of downloaded maps. It is great when abroad because I don't have to use any data while on the road. But yes, for everyday use, accuracy and I easy input ranks very high. The problem with my Navigon App is that often it just doesn't recognize the address I enter. I use google maps in the car often and entering data while driving is a bit dicey. So the important features - way before 3d - are:
But I gotta say, seeing that 3d video I sort of expected to see the cars move. Beyond that the 3d is pretty, if pretty useless in a practical context. If I automatically saw 3d images on my GPS as I turn into my destination street it would pretty awesome.
It was a tactic to be able to say that they did it first and aren't copying Apple and yeah maybe this is something they have been working on for a while but it isn't going to help them much on the PR front that they slapped up an announcement to beat Apple to the punch on announcing
as for the iPad, it is their way of saying 'hey we aren't scared of Apple, we love Apple see we made our stuff for them too" But given that the presentation crashed repeatedly I don't know that many folks will rush to get Google Earth if Apple releases anything map related. particularly if they so much as hint at future 3d inclusion. Because Apple isn't about to release something that was slapped up after 3 years of work on this project.
It was a tactic to be able to say that they did it first and aren't copying Apple and yeah maybe this is something they have been working on for a while but it isn't going to help them much on the PR front that they slapped up an announcement to beat Apple to the punch on announcing
Or it was preemptive because they know people like you claim Google copies Apple even if Google has the tech in place long before Apple does.
Hell, your crowd is the same crowd that at times likes to claim that Google's Android copied notifications from Web OS (and thus iOS wasn't inspired in the least by Android...somehow) even though it was released earlier.
Hell your implying that Google is copying Apple...when you haven't seen a single pixel of Apple's map technology...
It's a massive, complex 3D world to swoop around in. A lot of polygons, a lot of textures. It has to be very, very well organized to run without any hickups, streaming map data on the fly from the servers and getting them into the app with truly multithreaded and optimised code. For instance Google Earth on iPhone is a horrible example of a map app, and it's even without complex 3D geometry. Very poor performance, and user experience. It's a poorly written app.
Apple's engineers has to deliver a first class app.
I think it may be a very cool app, but not that useful. Or at least nowhere near as functional as it will be presented as being. In other words it will show us the future without fully delivering. A bit like Siri. Apple likes to deliver with big fanfare and including words like 'revolutionary and 'magical'. It must be hard to think up something really exciting that can sell a phone these days. Improved specs are expected. A little thinner, a little larger, a little faster is not something you can claim to be 'revolutionary'. A great map app could be but the likelihood of it being a game changer is small, me thinks. If it is cool and above all, fun, Apple will be able to market the crap out of it.
For mobile however, your wants couldn't be farther from the norm. The one "must have" and most popular feature for maps on mobile devices is actually street view. Second would be turn by turn navigation. Also, 2D maps are 2D maps, they are all about as readable as each other and the data has been around for years and years. Accuracy is more important to the average end user in that situation.
If Apple can demonstrate that it's maps have the same information and the same or better accuracy rate than Google's that's a win. If they can also (rather crucially) find a way to replace street view with the 3D view then they will have a lock. Without a street view replacement a *lot* of people are going to go with the Google alternative instead.
If you look closely at Google's presentation, the 3D looks rather jaggy and probably is just a blur at street level. This doesn't matter because they have the street view database to compensate/replace that data. If Apple breaks with Google however, chances are they lose street view and if they can't replace it (presumably by being far more accurate in 3D than Google) then they might be in trouble.
Where are you getting your information on normal use? On my Galaxy Nexus (yes, I have an Android phone) I use turn by turn navigation a couple times a week. I never use street view because navigation lets me watch the road and simply listen to prompts. Plus, the street view image of your destination is shown when you're close enough to see the building. If Apple builds in turn by turn navigation into iOS maps, you'll quickly realize that it is the key feature to any mobile maps application.
I remember the high hopes and predictions people had for Siri pre-release...and, while it is a cool feature, based on the predictions Siri is a dud.
Yep, just like the Wright brothers' biplane, Marconi's radio, Ford's assembly line, Bell's telephone, etc. etc.,
ALL Duds!
...at least compared to what they eventually became.
What Siri portends is a symbiosis the beta can't deliver, but its descendants will.
I suggest, do a Rip van Winkle, and, when you wake up (if that happens), you might not be so disappointed.
AI, "where you sometimes find that you never know what you least expect, most often..."
AI, "where you sometimes find that you never know what you least expect, most often..."
"Why don't you stop suing people and innovate, Apple!"
I'm partial to that one. Strangely enough, I'm less partial to its friend, "Guess Apple can't keep up, so they have to sue the leaders."
Hmm... this seems familiar. What other company out there would often produce flashy marketing videos for products they weren't ready to release to throw people off a competitor's product? Gee, can't quite remember who it was that did that.
So Google demos some work-in-progress 3D views of 'a few major cities' that look identical to what Apple acquired from C3 Technologies a year ago. And it crashes 4 times. And there's no release date. All this a week before Apple unveils its new, and presumably polished/feature complete Google-free iOS-wide maps app.
Pretty transparent bit of last-minute desperation from Google if you ask me.
All I want from my Maps app (whether it be Apple's or Google's) is an easy-to-use and accurate directions to help me get from Point A to Point B while in motion.
Some complains about the current Maps:
1. I cannot disable using toll roads and Southern California is full of them.
2. When I do a refresh to update the estimate how much time is remaining and how far away I am, it can get confused on where I am at and what direction I am heading (e.g. it will tell me to jump off the highway and jump back on again going the opposite direction because it thinks I am going southbound rather than northbound).
At the least, auto-updating directions would be sweet even if it is not to the extent of turn-by-turn. 3D is merely a gimmick.
Unless Apple's maps have turn-by-turn directions that automatically update to the next location and speak directions, it will be a complete failure and everyone will use this instead.
I think that sums up the argument about a new Maps app in iOS 6.
Are you saying that an article about the assumed Apple mapping system said it will do that?
I'm saying that an article in the Wall Street Journal said, quoting people who worked on the mapping project in the past, that Apple was aiming at solving problems like that, not just make prettier maps. Let's face it, the 3D is cool and all inasmuch as it allows you to visualize locations better and improve usability. But if I could get the information I need without looking at a map, then 3D is just for show.
I think it's very clever. It's not just pictures from a plane because they are able to process the images and figure out the dimensions of objects.
Well everyone is used to the Google Maps cars, time to get used to the planes :) Actually with their work on autodrive, I wonder how long until the Google cars start driving themselves around, and airborne drones too for the above.
Mapping bots could become a permanent feature of the cityscape... and they could attach WiFi base stations to them and, and, and... oh wait getting too strategic.
I think it's very clever. It's not just pictures from a plane because they are able to process the images and figure out the dimensions of objects.
Well everyone is used to the Google Maps cars, time to get used to the planes :) Actually with their work on autodrive, I wonder how long until the Google cars start driving themselves around, and airborne drones too for the above.
Mapping bots could become a permanent feature of the cityscape... and they could attach WiFi base stations to them and, and, and... oh wait getting too strategic.
From what I'm able to determine, Google is running a sophisticated program that extracts 3D data from pictures, which would make this essentially photogrammetry. This is not new, but extracting such detailed models from this information automatically is a bit of a step up. There are significant 3D mesh flaws using such a technique, however. Just take a close look at some of the details on their models versus the C3 models.
Where are you getting your information on normal use? On my Galaxy Nexus (yes, I have an Android phone) I use turn by turn navigation a couple times a week. I never use street view because navigation lets me watch the road and simply listen to prompts. Plus, the street view image of your destination is shown when you're close enough to see the building. If Apple builds in turn by turn navigation into iOS maps, you'll quickly realize that it is the key feature to any mobile maps application.
+1
To the average person, turn-by-turn is immensely useful. And I'd argue that it was one of the key factors in helping Android gain popularity. Until Google Maps Navigation came along, companies like Nokia would charge for map packs, etc. Google made Navigation a standard feature and is utterly decimating the standalone GPS market. It's forced Nokia to make Nokia Drive free. MS followed with turn-by-turn on Windows Phone with Bing Maps for free. And now it's Apple's turns.
And yeah, once you have it, you can't go back. Tom Tom app is nice. But there's nothing like an integrated maps app.
Quote:
Nokia and Navteq have been doing everything that Google just announced. They have 3D maps, Offline usage on mobile, Turn by Turn, Routing, etc. Seems like Google was trying to pre-empt the Apple announcement and play some catch up to Nokia/Navteq
+1
To be fair, (if I'm not mistaken) Nokia doesn't cache a local area, they let you download map packs. That does take up space on the phone. Being able to simply save the map of an area you are in is pretty handy. I travelled to Europe last summer and did just that. Simply downloaded the map for the 10 square miles of the area I was in, on wifi, before leaving the hotel.
The one benefit about Google Maps though is universal service. Nokia maps is pretty much terrible outside Europe and a few urban centres. I live in a condo that's 5 years old in Ottawa. Doesn't show up on Nokia Maps. And there's no way Nokia Maps will give you transit directions on the suburban rail and bus network in Mumbai, like Google Maps did for me, on vacation this past Christmas. Navigation on transit is actually pretty decent feature, especially if you're in an unfamiliar place.
Well he was just responding to standard response 358 out of iphone handbook
"Android is just ripping off "insert feature" from iOS"
On another note, at the end of the day. To the NORMAL person (90% of iphone buyers, those that have never even heard of what an A5 chip is) buying an iphone, the fact of the matter is if the mapping app that comes with the phone is good enough (gives turn by turn and tell you where the nearest gas station is), they will never use anything else. Apple know that. They don't NEED to map out the inside of every shopping mall. All of those are awesome features to have, but unless you ever used an android phone you won't even know it exists, and hence wouldn't care about it.
Bottom line, Apple releases a 'good enough app' that does its PRIMARY function (get you from point A to point B), they win.
I mostly agree with this. To simply retain their customers, basic map functionality is good enough. I would actually suggest that Apple may even avoid turn-by-turn functionality just so they don't kill off sales for navigation apps (and the cut they get).
I would disagree though that users aren't going to find out added features on Google Maps. You forget that lots of people do use Google Maps on their desktop. The mobile function is an extension of that. You can be sure, they'll be exposed to whatever Google is cooking up on maps.
I'm curious to see Apple's solution. Native maps is one of my three requirements for me to consider moving from Android to the iPhone (the other two being a bigger screen and support for my carrier). Google Maps with Navigation is amazing. Not just for the car turn-by-turn stuff. I use Transit directions a ton. I'm curious to see what Apple does for directions, points of interest, turn-by-turn navigation, transit directions, etc. 3D Maps? Meh. Nice aesthetic gimmick I suppose.
They showed it on iPad more likely because:
uhhhh.....first of all, how can you me too a product that doesn't exist. Matter of fact, Apple very much seems to be me-tooing google maps. kinda like Samsung making an iphone knock-off with a few extra features, at the end of the day, its still a knock off. Sad apple feel they need to, but hey, whatever. BUt also remember
1. Google mpas has had 3d in one form or another for YEARS.
2. This 3d isn't a bird eye view still pic, it can be rotated and interacted with, like a a game.
3. Content. Just the content from street view alone (streets, ski slopes, mountain treks, indoor buildings) would take apple years to do. Satellites and planes are all well and good, but even they can't give you mountain treks and indoor maps.
4. Lets not forget google sky and google ocean as well. They aren't just mapping cities, They are mapping the world, and by google sky, mapping the universe.
Now, having said all this. What does the typical mobile maps user need?
Space maps? No
Ocean Maps? No
3d maps? cool to have, but no
street view of a back corner of a shady town part of vietnam? No
Turn by turn? yes
driving Routes? yes
biking routes? yes
traffic? yes
train, buses and walking routes? Yes
If apple just manage to focus on these five very basic things which most mapping services already do equally well (more or less at least in major cities) they should be fine. Everything else are cool things to have that you will never use in a mobile situation.
OK. If you say so. Why do you think Google rushed this announcement right before Apple's WWDC?
Because Google is about to lose over half of their mobile map users.
Time will tell.
Apples been working on their maps for 4+ years, Google hear about what is involved release another "preview" which is really just a slapped together "gotta be first" mess. This is Googles problem, previewing stuff before its ready and making it look better than it really is. Cant wait til their glasses are released and show they are nothing like what they have amped them up to be. Should spend a bit less money getting famous people to wear them and more money on development and usability.
Apples been working on their maps for 4+ years, Google hear about what is involved release another "preview" which is really just a slapped together "gotta be first" mess. This is Googles problem, previewing stuff before its ready and making it look better than it really is. Cant wait til their glasses are released and show they are nothing like what they have amped them up to be. Should spend a bit less money getting famous people to wear them and more money on development and usability.
Google is really becoming Microsoft.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
Samsung's in the process of doing it with a bunch of products, each of which is discontinued about six months later. They seem to have some marketshare.
I'll let you know how that works out for them in the long run.
You know... I have watched the Google presentation here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMBJ2Hu0NLw
... and I must say that I have developed a greater appreciation for their history, what they have done and what they are working on for the future. I wish them well.
It's just too bad that because of business reasons they have to go at it alone with the exception of user created maps. They'll have to duplicate efforts that could have been collaborated with others.
I think the open source model is better because many large corporations can use and contribute information while still benefiting financially.
For example, I think the C3 technology is faster and more accurate for the 3D mapping.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNemPTHOKWg
Google's 3D effort and resources could be applied to other mapping layers or to augment and speed up other efforts in a BSD type open source model. I hope Apple and others (including Google) can work together to greatly and quickly enhance OpenStreetMaps to cover the world and the universe.
This is a big job that requires collaboration.
Time will tell.
Well this is an enhancement to an existing product not a new product.
The big message here seems not to be the 3D (which I assume is pretty similar to what Apple will announce next week) but just how difficult maps are to make. The history of Google Maps had some huge numbers such as 20 petabytes of imagery and 5 million miles of street view. It took Google years to get the maps to their current state and shows what an enormous task Apple is undertaking to create a competing service.
Well this is an enhancement to an existing product not a new product.
The big message here seems not to be the 3D (which I assume is pretty similar to what Apple will announce next week) but just how difficult maps are to make. The history of Google Maps had some huge numbers such as 20 petabytes of imagery and 5 million miles of street view. It took Google years to get the maps to their current state and shows what an enormous task Apple is undertaking to create a competing service.
Apple has a huge advantage because of the C3 Technology.
From 500 meters in the air, they can get accuracy to 10 cm on the grown. They can also cover 100 square km in about an hour.
These stats are from SAAB and may have been improved by Apple. Check it out...
