or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple hands off transit directions to third-party apps in iOS 6 Maps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple hands off transit directions to third-party apps in iOS 6 Maps - Page 2

post #41 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

3d fly-overs are cool but.....how are you gonna see inside of tunnels, buildings, caves, trails lined with trees etc using planes?

You gotta get someone with equipment to physically go and capture all that stuff. Like what google are doing with the street view backpack. 

Maps is no longer about roads. Its about cataloging the entire surface of the earth. I have no doubt apple will at some point make a competing product. 

EDIT: However, if Apple decides to waive their rule about competing apps on the marketplace and allow google maps, iOS WILL have access to street view anyway.

I'd prefer to be able to see full cities and one day maybe large areas of the planet in 3D than see the inside a cave or a tunnel....
post #42 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

I'm pretty sure that for my city, nothing is worse than bringing up Maps and having Google tell me how to get somewhere on public transportation. Even their driving directions suck much of the time. I'm better off just asking someone on the street for directions than depending on Google. Consequently, the directions available in Maps are often worthless, so switching to integration with 3rd-party apps like HopStop will be a huge improvement.

I suspect the cause of the problem is the local transit district and not Google. In my city it works perfectly. In order to provide accurate transit info Google needs to interface with the transit district's database. If the database is garbage that is what it sends to Google. If their database is garbage, most likely their ability to provide on time transportation services is also. In my city, OCTA recently won an award as the best transit service in the US, hence their scheduling interface with Google is top notch.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #43 of 78

I'm happy to say that I drive my brand new car everywhere I go so if Siri can get my there, I'm happy

post #44 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

Sorry, if I have to go outside the Maps app to get alternative transit date, I have to say this is a fail.  I don't want to have to bounce around multiple apps trying to figure out the best way to get somewhere.  A specialized activity like hiking or bike trail riding, sure.  But walking and transit are integral for any urban consumer, and I shouldn't have to flick between Maps and one or more 3rd party apps (re-entering all the info multiple times!) to figure out how to get somewhere.

If the alternative (non-car) data is embeddable as layers within the Maps app, by downloading other 3rd party maps -- that might be OK for your usual locality (even then, you have to know which add-on apps to download - Caltrain, SamTrans, Muni, Bart, etc.), but it's not going to be very user friendly when visiting another city.  If I go to Boston, all the transit data is right there; I shouldn't have to go to the App Store and look for Boston transit apps to add into Maps.

EDIT: (And for those saying "but including transit and biking, etc. would be way too much data for Maps!", I say "Google's been doing it for years".  Once you've got the incredible complexity of maps, with all the streets [which have to be mapped as individual lanes, with every intersection detailed for appropriate access], buildings, parks, etc., it's actually very little more data to add in transit schedules!)

 

You do realize the public transit directions in Google are absolutely atrocious? From San Jose to Foster City, Google highly prefers to travel North to East Bay then across the San Mateo Bridge. WTF!

iOS 6 Maps does provide walking directions.

There may not be separate apps for each mode of transportation (BART, Caltrain, SamTrans, etc.). For example, there is a website that allows you to plan your entire trip within the Bay Area on a single website rather than planning each segment separately on different websites.

How do you know "it's not going to be very user friendly when visiting another city?" It is possible that the App Store will present suitable Maps directions Apps based on your current location. We don't know as yet.
Edited by MacBook Pro - 6/13/12 at 11:53am
post #45 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Which is why all of Google's services, including search, have become mediocre. Google's desire to "take over the world" results in a lack of focus which leads to mediocrity, just as we've previously seen with Microsoft. Apple's strategy of building platforms and focusing on making those as good as possible has, as in the case of OS X and iOS, resulted in better products with better user experiences, and the gap between what Apple and Google offers will continue to widen, in Apple's favor.


Mediocre? I haven't thought about it much but my Mac and iPhone wouldn't be nearly the products they are not without Google - search, maps, docs, translate, YouTube. Yahoo has search and maps but they aren't nearly as good.

post #46 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


You do realize the public transit directions in Google are absolutely atrocious?

I have used Google maps for BART and Muni. Directions and schedules have been spot-on when I used it.

post #47 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

3d fly-overs are cool but.....how are you gonna see inside of tunnels, buildings, caves, trails lined with trees etc using planes?

 

You gotta get someone with equipment to physically go and capture all that stuff. Like what google are doing with the street view backpack. 

 

Maps is no longer about roads. Its about cataloging the entire surface of the earth. I have no doubt apple will at some point make a competing product. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

Exactly! Anyone care to join me in a Kickstarter project for a street level view app? My concept is to simply have iPhone 4S users use their phone to capture 360 degree panoramic photographs then upload said photographs along with the GPS metadata. Based on all the apparent backlash about the current lack of street level views in a beta app we should be billionaires in about 3 minutes upon public release.

 

You should check in with these folks:

 

http://realplaces.com

 

They do exactly this, but in a low-tech way with fully user-generated content.  You can go inside, outside, in a cave, wherever.  Looks like they could benefit from some "appification", but they have the idea and basic tools.  

 

My 2 cents; it's very cool, but it takes more time than many people are willing to commit to create these "places".  On the other hand, it's only going to be successful if there are thousands (or millions) of regular folks out doing this and linking their places together.  Something needs to get jump-started!


Edited by Blah64 - 6/13/12 at 12:27pm
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #48 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


Mediocre? I haven't thought about it much but my Mac and iPhone wouldn't be nearly the products they are not without Google - search, maps, docs, translate, YouTube. Yahoo has search and maps but they aren't nearly as good.

That is Google propaganda.

iOS Maps is now and has always been an Apple app. The difference is who managed the geographic data and infrastructure while the user interface was provided by Apple.

Search works exceedingly well without Google. Google Search is mediocre. Bing (and Yahoo) appear to now provide the best results of the top three search engines. You can see for yourself at any number of comparison sites. Google heavily favors Wikipedia and similar sites among other issues. As an example go to Yabigo and search for "how many unique iphone users."
post #49 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I suspect the cause of the problem is the local transit district and not Google. In my city it works perfectly. In order to provide accurate transit info Google needs to interface with the transit district's database. If the database is garbage that is what it sends to Google. If their database is garbage, most likely their ability to provide on time transportation services is also. In my city, OCTA recently won an award as the best transit service in the US, hence their scheduling interface with Google is top notch.

 

They are all based on the same data from transit agencies. Google's directions tend to be the worst, so I suspect the problem is with Google.

post #50 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

They are all based on the same data from transit agencies. Google's directions tend to be the worst, so I suspect the problem is with Google.

You could be right in that perhaps a locally based provider would meticulously clean up the data once it was received where as Google just takes what they send them. If the data is corrupt then Google uses it anyway. I base this hypothesis on the fact that Google's transit data is near flawless in OC which I am attributing to the data being high quality in the first place.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #51 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by virginblue4 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

3d fly-overs are cool but.....how are you gonna see inside of tunnels, buildings, caves, trails lined with trees etc using planes?

I'd prefer to be able to see full cities and one day maybe large areas of the planet in 3D than see the inside a cave or a tunnel....

 

I'd prefer to have usable, detailed transit schedules and similar functional features, than some cool-looking gimmick that I'll never use and serves no substantive purpose.
 

post #52 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


How do you know "it's not going to be very user friendly when visiting another city?" It is possible that the App Store will present suitable Maps directions Apps based on your current location. We don't know as yet.

 

But you see, to me that's "not very user friendly" at step one.  If I fly to Boston for business, to Honolulu for vacation, etc., I don't want to have to think "OK, now that I've landed I've got to go to the App Store and see if I can find the transit layers I need..."

 

"Plug and play" was the mantra that made Apple successful, and I think the point that people like me are making -- respectfully -- is that Apple seems to be getting away from that -- to us the message "You just have to go to the App Store... then locate the transit collection... now find the city you need, and download the one or more apps that correspond..." is not simple, it's not the sort of "plug and play" that we're used to getting out of Cupertino.

post #53 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


That is Google propaganda.
iOS Maps is now and has always been an Apple app. The difference is who managed the geographic data and infrastructure while the user interface was provided by Apple.
Search works exceedingly well without Google. Google Search is mediocre. Bing (and Yahoo) appear to now provide the best results of the top three search engines. You can see for yourself at any number of comparison sites. Google heavily favors Wikipedia and similar sites among other issues. As an example go to Yabigo and search for "how many unique iphone users."


I try not to get caught up in who wrote the app or what some obscure website says about who is better, just that the it works well. And from my experience, Google stuff really works really well.

post #54 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by virginblue4 View Post


I'd prefer to be able to see full cities and one day maybe large areas of the planet in 3D than see the inside a cave or a tunnel....


Yeah from my computer with a larger screen. Not so much when on the tiny screen of my iPhone while on the go.

post #55 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Voluntary or involuntary 'crowd sourcing'?

 

If the latter, there are clearly privacy issues. If the former, why should I trust the data without knowing what percentage of how big a 'crowd' is being 'sourced' from?

 

Reporting traffic has to be completely voluntary... you need human interaction to actually see that there is traffic and report/submit it to Apple.

 

It's actually very easy to validate real traffic reports versus fake... it only takes a dozen or so "reports" from different devices, within a specific area and time frame to verify an accurate report. Not only that, Apple could get the information from transportation departments as well.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #56 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

The likely proposed workflow by Apple is to ask Siri to "Open Hiker's Handbook" then use the app for directions, said app would use the embedded Maps functionality though.

 

Sounds to me like it'll be handled the same way Passbook is. You download the original app and it registers its data with Apple's system application.

 

The same will apply to Maps. I can download, say, a Metro Bus schedule application. It would register its data with the system through the Maps API and that information would be available to the system map and viewable in any application that makes use of the system's maps view.

 

This platform type architecture would allow almost any kind of information to be inserted into a map... Imagine downloading a Metro Zoo or national park app and it registers itself with the system map and allows the map to show points of interests.

 

The possibilities are endless.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #57 of 78
Apple thinks of and sells their maps as an improvement but it is a backward step. We loose street view and get nothing useful back. It really is a downgrade of capability.
post #58 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lerxt View Post

Apple thinks of and sells their maps as an improvement but it is a backward step. We loose street view and get nothing useful back. It really is a downgrade of capability.

So spoken, automatically-updating turn-by-turn is "nothing useful"?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #59 of 78
Developers would do well to take a look at TripView Sydney on the Australian App Store. The best implementation of transit app I've seen by far.
post #60 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

 

Reporting traffic has to be completely voluntary... you need human interaction to actually see that there is traffic and report/submit it to Apple.

 

It's actually very easy to validate real traffic reports versus fake... it only takes a dozen or so "reports" from different devices, within a specific area and time frame to verify an accurate report. Not only that, Apple could get the information from transportation departments as well.

That's not how crowd-sourced traffic works. It doesn't depend on users "reporting" anything. Instead it takes constantly updating location data from your device to register your travel speeds over various road classifications, combines it with others traveling that roadway plus reports from public agencies, and compares that to the historical traffic speeds for that segment for a snapshot of what they think traffic conditions are. Not foolproof but it's generally fairly effective. That's the "live" portion. They can also predict some future traffic issues with advance notice of local special events. They almost certainly are using TomTom's Live Traffic database IMO.  

 

So yes, by agreeing to the terms for Apple maps you more than likely will be required to share your location. That would of course still be voluntary as no one forces you to accept Apple's terms of service.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

But you see, to me that's "not very user friendly" at step one.  If I fly to Boston for business, to Honolulu for vacation, etc., I don't want to have to think "OK, now that I've landed I've got to go to the App Store and see if I can find the transit layers I need..."

"Plug and play" was the mantra that made Apple successful, and I think the point that people like me are making -- respectfully -- is that Apple seems to be getting away from that -- to us the message "You just have to go to the App Store... then locate the transit collection... now find the city you need, and download the one or more apps that correspond..." is not simple, it's not the sort of "plug and play" that we're used to getting out of Cupertino.

You just ignored the crux of my post. I just explained that the workflow might not be "You just have to go to the App Store... then locate the transit collection... now find the city you need, and download the one or more apps that correspond..."

You might simply access maps, ask for public transit directions and, are presented public transit app that provide directions in the current geographic location within the same user interface view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Sounds to me like it'll be handled the same way Passbook is. You download the original app and it registers its data with Apple's system application.

The same will apply to Maps. I can download, say, a Metro Bus schedule application. It would register its data with the system through the Maps API and that information would be available to the system map and viewable in any application that makes use of the system's maps view.

This platform type architecture would allow almost any kind of information to be inserted into a map... Imagine downloading a Metro Zoo or national park app and it registers itself with the system map and allows the map to show points of interests.

The possibilities are endless.

Essentially correct.
Edited by MacBook Pro - 6/14/12 at 8:43am
post #62 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Rather than include transit and walking directions natively in the new Maps application in iOS 6, Apple will instead highlight third-party options available on the iOS App Store.
...

 

This is Apple being completely (and transparently) disingenuous.  

 

The whole "let's switch from Google Maps" thing is starting to sound like a complete f*ck up from day one. What a lot of people in the USA might not appreciate, is that about 60% of the world doesn't drive cars, so while you guys are all busy obsessing over turn by turn, Apple has removed most of the functionality that *most* of the people using the maps app (world-wide anyway) rely on.  

 

As a pedestrian and bicyclist, streetview is supremely important.  

Accurate bus information is even more important than that

Walking times and directions that are integrated with the bus routes are essential.  

 

There is no app that I'm aware of in my city to do this for me and I sure wouldn't trust it if there was.  

To just send the users searching through the crap in the app store for this is unconscionable.  

 

Absolutely ridiculous.  I hate Google with a passion and everything they stand for but at this rate I will be looking for the Google Map solution on the first day I get my new iPhone

post #63 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


Bingo! We have a winner!
I suspect an enterprising developer could even provide, dare we say it, a street level view app. Although iOS 6 Maps doesn't need a street level view.

 

This is just a ridiculous thing to say.  

 

First off maps *need* streetview.  It's one of the most popular features the users use all the time. 

Secondly, how is it that some developer is going to have the money to drive thousands of cars loaded with cameras all around the city (or every city).  Streetview is impossible without some giant company footing the bill for the cars and staff to take the pictures.  

post #64 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

 

Sounds to me like it'll be handled the same way Passbook is. You download the original app and it registers its data with Apple's system application.

 

The same will apply to Maps. I can download, say, a Metro Bus schedule application. It would register its data with the system through the Maps API and that information would be available to the system map and viewable in any application that makes use of the system's maps view.

 

This platform type architecture would allow almost any kind of information to be inserted into a map... Imagine downloading a Metro Zoo or national park app and it registers itself with the system map and allows the map to show points of interests.

 

The possibilities are endless.

 

The problem is that this also sounds incredibly complex.  If I'm a middle-aged housewife with no computer knowledge and who doesn't even buy apps, and I just bought a phone and want to find out when the next bus is coming to the stop I'm standing at, previous to this move the phone would just tell me.  

 

Now I have to download an app (what's that? how do I do that?), register it with the map? WTF?  It's already way too complex.  

 

The user shouldn't have to do anything but look at the map.  If you have to do anything else at all it's a fail, or at least a step back in functionality from the original.  

 

Now Google has that way of shooting themselves in the foot by making their own apps ridiculously and stupidly complex so perhaps their solution will also suck, but so far ... this solution from Apple is completely full to the brim with suck.  

post #65 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by TDeprez View Post

That's true. But why not password protected? So only available with an Apple ID? Like iCloud?

I'm not sure what the advantage would be. It would be like what, Mapquest?
post #66 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

Google tries to do everything themselves because the more "services" they provide to consumers, the larger their advertising platform becomes which increases their revenue.
Apple purchased several mapping companies to reduce dependency on Google and reduce Google's revenue of which approximately USD $500 m annually is derived from the use of Google services as the infrastructure of iOS Maps.

Well, Nokia does the same thing. But they don't have a large and thriving third party navigation app market either. If you don't have one, you do it yourself.
So I could have understood it, say, two years ago, maybe three. But now it isn't really needed, except for those who simply won't pay for anything.
post #67 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google began subway routes/stops back in Feb/2007, the same time they added real-time traffic reporting. Walking directions were added in June of 2008. All of those preceded Apple's AppStore, and definitely intro'd before Google even had an app market. I don't believe those features for free from Google had anything to do with 3rd party mobile apps since there wasn't even an AppStore.

Apple's app store had nothing to do with Android. They were competing with Nokia, as they had it, from what I remember. But June 2008 was when the app store did open up.

But when did they add, not walking directions or traffic reporting, neither of which count for this discussion, but spoken turn by turn driving directions? That's what Nokia was giving. And shortly after Apple did open the app store, we began seeing turn by turn apps appear. Just one or two at first, but then a bunch. How many are on the Android platform? I think every major company has one for iOS.
post #68 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's not how crowd-sourced traffic works. It doesn't depend on users "reporting" anything. Instead it takes constantly updating location data from your device to register your travel speeds over various road classifications, combines it with others traveling that roadway plus reports from public agencies, and compares that to the historical traffic speeds for that segment for a snapshot of what they think traffic conditions are. Not foolproof but it's generally fairly effective. That's the "live" portion. They can also predict some future traffic issues with advance notice of local special events. They almost certainly are using TomTom's Live Traffic database IMO.  

So yes, by agreeing to the terms for Apple maps you more than likely will be required to share your location. That would of course still be voluntary as no one forces you to accept Apple's terms of service.

I have this with my MotionX turn by turn app. I can choose to turn traffic data that comes TO me on or off, and I can choose to participate in giving back my location and speed data to their crowd sourced database. I do both. I would imaging that apples would be usefull over more places as it could be that more people would use app,e,s app that anyone else's, and so would give more data back. Unless we would be agreeing to give the data even though we weren't using Apple's turn by turn app. That would be ok by me. As long as this is anonymized, I don't care.
post #69 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


Apple's app store had nothing to do with Android. They were competing with Nokia, as they had it, from what I remember. But June 2008 was when the app store did open up.
But when did they add, not walking directions or traffic reporting, neither of which count for this discussion, but spoken turn by turn driving directions? That's what Nokia was giving. And shortly after Apple did open the app store, we began seeing turn by turn apps appear. Just one or two at first, but then a bunch. How many are on the Android platform? I think every major company has one for iOS.

Mel,  believe your memory of events is incorrect. Nokia introduced free spoken turn-by-turn directions for some of it's Symbian phones in January/2010, a few months after Google Maps 2.0 brought the feature to Android phones in October of 2009.

 

Note too that Google's connected navigation service wasn't being offered by any smartphone app provider when it was announced. Not Tomtom, Sygic, Navigon nor any other Android, Symbian, iOS or Blackberry-compatible app. It had nothing to do with iOS nav providers offering similar paid features not available to Android users. What Google brought to market wasn't available from anyone else for smartphones, period.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/28/google-redefines-car-gps-navigation-google-maps-navigation-android/


Edited by Gatorguy - 6/14/12 at 4:23pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
Unless we would be agreeing to give the data even though we weren't using Apple's turn by turn app. That would be ok by me. As long as this is anonymized, I don't care.

Mel, do you personally consider data anonymized if it's tied to a UDID? I know what Apple calls it in their privacy policy. Just curious.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #71 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Mel,  believe your memory of events is incorrect. Nokia introduced free spoken turn-by-turn directions for some of it's Symbian phones in January/2010, a few months after Google Maps 2.0 brought the feature to Android phones in October of 2009.

Note too that Google's connected navigation service wasn't being offered by any smartphone app provider when it was announced. Not Tomtom, Sygic, Navigon nor any other Android, Symbian, iOS or Blackberry-compatible app. It had nothing to do with iOS nav providers offering similar paid features not available to Android users. What Google brought to market wasn't available from anyone else for smartphones, period.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/28/google-redefines-car-gps-navigation-google-maps-navigation-android/

All the article says is that that Droid model, which was the first one to come with Android 2.0 was the first Android phone to come with that. It doesn't say anything else.
post #72 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Mel, do you personally consider data anonymized if it's tied to a UDID? I know what Apple calls it in their privacy policy. Just curious.

If the company keeps that UDID on record, along with the info, then no. But Apple has eliminated that practice for app makers, and they said that they didn't collect that info themselves.
post #73 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


All the article says is that that Droid model, which was the first one to come with Android 2.0 was the first Android phone to come with that. It doesn't say anything else.

I was posting it so you could see the features that were introduced if you were at all curious. I figured you weren't aware of all of them. As for Nokia/Navteq they were still months behind Google in offering TBT voice navigation. From Google Maps 2.0 forward it's been Nokia/Navteq chasing Google rather than the other way around.


Edited by Gatorguy - 6/15/12 at 4:33pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

You should check in with these folks:

http://realplaces.com

They do exactly this, but in a low-tech way with fully user-generated content.  You can go inside, outside, in a cave, wherever.  Looks like they could benefit from some "appification", but they have the idea and basic tools.  

My 2 cents; it's very cool, but it takes more time than many people are willing to commit to create these "places".  On the other hand, it's only going to be successful if there are thousands (or millions) of regular folks out doing this and linking their places together.  Something needs to get jump-started!

I contacted RealPlaces and we are in the process of evaluating what we can offer on Apple iOS. Thank you very much for the suggestion! I am very excited to help this small company grow as well as provide a service that so many feel is critical to Apple iOS.
post #75 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundvision View Post

I'm pretty sure for my city, nothing is easier than bringing up Maps and having Google tell me which bus to get on and when it leaves. Luckily I don't ride the bus much so it doesn't matter but this definitely that will be missed. I don't want to download 3rd party maps for every new city I'm instead versus just bring up Google Maps. At least Google will have a separate app so I can use their maps when needed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb0731 View Post

This is disappointing. I was always much more likely to use the walking directions with the phone

You are both missing the point.   Apples map app will be the platform.  Third party apps on your phone will take advantage of it.  A ton of devs each writing their own apps using Apple's map data, with results displayed in Apples Map app will make for far more interesting things to be written than if Apple's or Googles relatively small development teams tried to do it all.

 

So there won't be new 3rd party maps for every city, there will just be Apple's maps and Google's maps.  Only Apples walled garden maps will be far more accessible to developer use for dynamic things than Google's supposedly open access which really only means you can plot static KML over it.

.
Reply
.
Reply
post #76 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by redheadednomad View Post

"When building Maps, we looked around and realized the best transit apps for metros, for hiking, for biking, are coming from our developers,"

 

Yeah, I hear there's a really good, free one called Google Maps - maybe let Tim Cook know?

 

Larry, is that you?  And you thought Tim was going to soften on Steve's thermonuclear stance.  Now we can see Tim is just as offended and has decided to cut off the oxygen supply piece by piece, app by app.  All while smiling and making sure the execution is ruthlessly efficient.  Tim's style may not be as publicly obvious, but it is true to the Apple core belief of make your own stuff.

.
Reply
.
Reply
post #77 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

Sorry, if I have to go outside the Maps app to get alternative transit date, I have to say this is a fail.  I don't want to have to bounce around multiple apps trying to figure out the best way to get somewhere.  A specialized activity like hiking or bike trail riding, sure.  But walking and transit are integral for any urban consumer, and I shouldn't have to flick between Maps and one or more 3rd party apps (re-entering all the info multiple times!) to figure out how to get somewhere.

 

If the alternative (non-car) data is embeddable as layers within the Maps app, by downloading other 3rd party maps -- that might be OK for your usual locality (even then, you have to know which add-on apps to download - Caltrain, SamTrans, Muni, Bart, etc.), but it's not going to be very user friendly when visiting another city.  If I go to Boston, all the transit data is right there; I shouldn't have to go to the App Store and look for Boston transit apps to add into Maps.

 

EDIT: (And for those saying "but including transit and biking, etc. would be way too much data for Maps!", I say "Google's been doing it for years".  Once you've got the incredible complexity of maps, with all the streets [which have to be mapped as individual lanes, with every intersection detailed for appropriate access], buildings, parks, etc., it's actually very little more data to add in transit schedules!)

 

You have no clue as to how painfully intensive it is to keep those things current.  Google maps still gives me bad directions and is horrible with the BART and Muni schedules/routes in their own stomping ground.  Because of this I have a Muni app and Bart app.  Currently they display on a static Google map but have to leave the app to do it.  I can imagine they will soon have access to the Apple map platform and not have to do that.  I also expect these apps will feel almost like plugins to the Apple map platform when all is said and done.  You will see a screen wipe the external app does its job.  It will hardly feel different than scrolling.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

 

But you see, to me that's "not very user friendly" at step one.  If I fly to Boston for business, to Honolulu for vacation, etc., I don't want to have to think "OK, now that I've landed I've got to go to the App Store and see if I can find the transit layers I need..."

 

"Plug and play" was the mantra that made Apple successful, and I think the point that people like me are making -- respectfully -- is that Apple seems to be getting away from that -- to us the message "You just have to go to the App Store... then locate the transit collection... now find the city you need, and download the one or more apps that correspond..." is not simple, it's not the sort of "plug and play" that we're used to getting out of Cupertino.

 

You haven't been reading much at all.  If you fly into Boston and ask for services in the map app that you don't already have, Maps will suggest the options to you.  By the description given you don't have to go off to sea on a fishing expedition, it's more like getting the fish from the fishmonger right in front of you.  Even Google has to download all the data before you can use it.  


Edited by Hiro - 6/15/12 at 7:01pm
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #78 of 78
deleted via consolidation
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple hands off transit directions to third-party apps in iOS 6 Maps