or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's "iLost" Motorola ad faked an address to "lose" iOS 6 Maps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's "iLost" Motorola ad faked an address to "lose" iOS 6 Maps - Page 7

post #241 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdingfrii View Post

Yes you should if you purchased a Google product and it did not meet your standards you should call them out.

 

With Google you're not the customer, you're the commodity.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #242 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

 

With Google you're not the customer, you're the commodity.

Never heard that one before. ;)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #243 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

 

With Google you're not the customer, you're the commodity.

Is Apple starting to follow the same path then?

post #244 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

You're making the rash assumption that just any old bot can query Apple's map servers. That may not be the case. Also, searching for what isn't there is not as easy as you seem to think. But, either way, they had obviously been sifting through Apple's map data for some time prior to the release of i

 

As for your point that I'm delusional, you're either incredibly naive or totally out of touch. Companies, particularly Google, feed the media stories all the time. It's also pretty well known that they pay people to post on sites like this, pretending to be ordinary "citizens", and pushing the company "story". Sometimes what looks like a coordinated media/astroturfing blitz, timed to hit the street the day after iOS 6 was released and the day before the iPhone 5 was, is in fact just that and not a coincidence. Is "all" the noise from Google? No. But did they kick off and stimulate this particular controversy? I think it has their fingerprints all over it.

 

It's not like Google has shown themselves to be some sort of paragon of virtue. On the contrary, they've shown themselves to be a dishonest, in fact criminal, organization that has no respect for the any norms of ethical behavior. As a company (and perhaps this stems from the persons at the top) Google has demonstrated time and again that they are a psychopathic organization. They have no sense of right or wrong. They have no conscience. Absolutely nothing restrains their behavior, a psychopath will do anything they think will benefit them.

I can't prove you wrong here because there is no evidence that will contradict your claims.  Similarly you can't provide evidence to support your claims.  In spite of that I'm going to rebut your point and ask a couple questions.  What media blitz?  I saw lots of news networks discussing the iPhone 5 release, but none of them were harping on Apple's maps.  Some tech blogs posted stories about the maps issues, but no site that I regularly visit posted as many stories as this one.  You spend a lot of time here.  Is it possible that the number of stories on this site is giving you the impression that the rest of the internet is ablaze with stories about maps?  And is the amount of arguing that goes on in the comments section here leaving you with the impression that the rest of the internet is up in arms, taking a side on Apple's maps?

 

To your point about Google creating this news, regardless of the actual volume of news, and then bribing or forcing (or whatever you think they do) websites to publish the story, why would a website like The Verge take a bribe from Google to run a story?  They gain nothing from being biased in their reporting because they're a general tech blog.  Biased reporting actually decreases readership, except on websites that cater to a particular base like Apple Insider.  Readers on The Verge or any other major tech blog aren't of one mindset and aren't going to be rallied into an Apple-hating frenzy by an article, unlike on this website.

 

Just as before, I can't use hard evidence to refute your claims of Google paying employees to post in comment sections, but I think that's a silly notion.  Comments on blog posts are a source of consumer information for nobody.  Nobody is going to stumble upon a Apple-bashing article and then scroll down to the comments to make up their mind on what they think of Apple.  No, they'll make up their mind by reading the article and then comparing that information to the information they have already acquired and the opinions they have already formed.  The comments section is where people go for entertainment, and I can't think of a good reason for a company to spend money to counter trollish comments.

 

Lastly, Google is no less ethical than any other company.  They merely seem less ethical to you because you're already biased against them.

post #245 of 268
Originally Posted by gdingfrii View Post
Is Apple starting to follow the same path then?

 

How?

post #246 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

How?

Is this to make a better product for the customer or another piece in their war to bury a rival.

It would seem that if it were with the customer in mind it would have come out in usual Apple fashion as a great product.

post #247 of 268
Originally Posted by gdingfrii View Post
Is this to make a better product for the customer or another piece in their war to bury a rival.

 

Oh, so not the same path, then. I was confused there, because you did say 'same path', implying that Apple was going to start treating human beings as products being sold like Google does.

post #248 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Oh, so not the same path, then. I was confused there, because you did say 'same path', implying that Apple was going to start treating human beings as products being sold like Google does.

Treated as a product or a pawn feels pretty similar to me.

post #249 of 268
Excellent points, Daniel. The ironic thing, as you pointed out, is that there is really no need to defend Apple in this. Nor to attack GoogleMaps. They're both right.

My co-worker wrote this up (http://goo.gl/8ka5C) and I wanted to expand on it a little.

First, I need to establish some terms:

VALID ADDRESS = a deliverable location. I could mail a letter to this address and it would get there.

APPROXIMATED ADDRESS = the location where a given address "would" be found if it were valid.


Let's begin. First, the only thing that we have is that the input address is: 315 e 15th NY. We can infer that the user probably wants to search (a) within the entire state of New York, or (b) just within New York City. In each case, a little more information in the search (like a state) would give better results. For this search, AS IS, here are the possible VALID address results.

First, a quick search for this address using an "address verification" tool yields these three VALID results:

(1)
315 Marlborough Rd
Brooklyn NY 11226-4511
(Note - The delivery address is VALID, but it is known by another (preferred) name. For example, in New York, NY, AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS is also known as 6TH AVE.)

(2)
315 15th St
Brooklyn NY 11215-5005

(3)
315 15th Ave
West Babylon NY 11704-2740

All three of these are VALID addresses.

GoogleMaps made the assumption that the state is New York AND that the city is New York City, NOT one of the five boroughs that are collectively referred to as New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx, and Queens). Google Maps (in the advertisement) is showing an approximated address. If there were a home or business at 315 East 15th Street, that is precisely where it would be located. Kudos to Google Maps.

Kudos to Apple Maps, too: Apple Maps also made the assumption that the state is New York but they also assumed that the city is could be any of the five boroughs that are collectively referred to as New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx, and Queens). Apple Maps (in the advertisement) is showing the corrected address: 315 Marlborough Rd Brooklyn NY 11226-4511. This is a VALID address, not just an APPROXIMATED address.

Who is right and who is wrong? That all depends on the person who was performing the search. Which of the four locations were they hoping to find when they performed the search? Since both companies had to make assumptions based on incomplete (and potentially ambiguous) data, I would say that BOTH are right. I tend to lean a little more toward an algorithm that assumes that I am probably looking for a VALID address instead of just an APPROXIMATE location but that is just one person's opinion. It all depends on what you are looking for.
post #250 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ateny View Post


Is Bing Maps right on this?

 

Tried with Google Maps and got Geyer and Riverside mixed in both the top street and the one of the right.

yes, bing is correct, as is apples map

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply
post #251 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

 

Censorship is when government prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expression, etc.

You seem to be a tad bit confused.

Censorship is when anyone prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expressions, etc.

 

However, the 1st amendment to the US constitution prohibits the government making laws preventing freedom of speech.

There are no laws that say a company, your boss, your parents, a website, etc. cannot censor you.

post #252 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

You seem to be a tad bit confused.

Censorship is when anyone prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expressions, etc.

 

Wrong.  Only a government can actually compel someone into silence, limit what can be printed, or ban a book.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

However, the 1st amendment to the US constitution prohibits the government making laws preventing freedom of speech.

There are no laws that say a company, your boss, your parents, a website, etc. cannot censor you.

 

A company or boss can fire you, a school can expel you, parents can ground you, a website can ban you.  But none of them can actually prohibit or suppress free speech, ban a book, etc. except within the confines of their small sphere of influence.

 

In particular instance, freedom of the press assumes ownership the press.  The person complaining about being censored may or may not be able to post about a topic on AI, but he is free to put up his own website and self-publish whatever tripe he was trying to spread here.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #253 of 268
Give it whatever name you darn please (frankly, I take the broader definition), but troll posts and troll accounts might go away without notice. If you want to disagree, fine, but intentionally incendiary comments, particularly against Apple fans, and those that make them repeatedly, don't belong here.

This isn't a place for Samsung or Android fans to tell us were all dumb for choosing an Apple product. There are other places on the web for that. I don't go to android sites to tell them they're stupid, I wish others would return the favor.
post #254 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

A company or boss can fire you, a school can expel you, parents can ground you, a website can ban you.  But none of them can actually prohibit or suppress free speech, ban a book, etc. except within the confines of their small sphere of influence.

Correct.

Which is why your statement

Censorship is when government prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expression, etc.

is correct but is not complete. Censorship does not apply only to government.

 

In particular instance, freedom of the press assumes ownership the press.  The person complaining about being censored may or may not be able to post about a topic on AI,

Because AI is practicing censorship (within the confines of their small sphere of influence).

Censorship is when a company, person, organization, government prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expression, etc.

post #255 of 268

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 3:12pm
post #256 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post


Do you realize that's also true with AppleInsider, and any other ad-based business?

Yes except that AI and the others aren't as intertwined in our daily lives as google is.
post #257 of 268
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
Do you realize that's also true with AppleInsider, and any other ad-based business?

 

Do you realize that I can avoid all digital contact with AppleInsider by not ever having an account here?

Do you realize that this is impossible with Google?

 

Of course you don't.

post #258 of 268

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 3:12pm
post #259 of 268
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post
Do you realize that if you have the technical background to arrive at paranoid conclusions about cookie monsters you also have the background needed to use cookie blockers?

 

Apparently you don't.

 

Of course I do. That's not the frigging point, and you know it.

post #260 of 268

Many people have pointed out that there are plenty of other examples that could've been used.

 

As someone who's had to come up with data for public consumption, but still steer clear of privacy issues, my first thought was that:

 

This address could've been chosen specifically because it does NOT point to anyone's home or business.

post #261 of 268
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

This address could've been chosen specifically because it does NOT point to anyone's home or business.

 

Making it irrelevant to everyone.

 

They could have done the address for Motorola or Google's building in NYC. 

post #262 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

This address could've been chosen specifically because it does NOT point to anyone's home or business.

 

Making it irrelevant to everyone.

 

They could have done the address for Motorola or Google's building in NYC. 

 

Except I'm sure that iOS maps knows where those are, so the example would have failed. I did wonder about the same question when the ad appeared, and I'm guessing that they spent some time looking for useable real addresses that did not have privacy issues. That they used a non-existent address in the end made me think that they couldn't find any suitable real ones, which, in itself, would suggest that the iOS map database is pretty good right out of the gate.

post #263 of 268
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
Except I'm sure that iOS maps knows where those are, so the example would have failed.

 

WHAT'S THAT?! Funny how that works, then, eh? lol.gif

post #264 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Many people have pointed out that there are plenty of other examples that could've been used.

 

As someone who's had to come up with data for public consumption, but still steer clear of privacy issues, my first thought was that:

 

This address could've been chosen specifically because it does NOT point to anyone's home or business.

 

What better way to "steer clear of privacy issues" than to use a non-address, right?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #265 of 268

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/21/13 at 3:12pm
post #266 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Lol!
Apple just sold over 5 million iPhone 5 s in the past week and a half so this crap by Moto is mute IMHO. And Apple did it with their own hardware and software.

 

You sure Apple did it with their own hardware?? Last time I checked Apple don't make any hardwares.

Apple advertise as if they make their hardware or they invented their hardware; ie. "Apple's New Retina Display", when they use LG's and Samsung's display.

post #267 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ Kay View Post

You sure Apple did it with their own hardware?? Last time I checked Apple don't make any hardwares.
Apple advertise as if they make their hardware or they invented their hardware; ie. "Apple's New Retina Display", when they use LG's and Samsung's display.

Apple are such liars. They put their names on products when it's Foxconn that actually makes them. Such assholes¡

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #268 of 268

Why are people still trying to defend this debacle? Apple simply made a change to eliminate a competitor from its system relying on customer loyalty to prop it up while it tried to fix things on the fly with updates. This goes against the whole concept apple has attacked MS for, putting out broken software and using updates to patch things. Complaints about wrong address entered into a system?

 

Quote:
 315 E 15th Street is not an actual address in Manhattan.

 

 Well guess what that happens all the time! The program is just more accurate with google. it "guesstimates" the missed addresses better 

 

Quote:
But if you're searching for an phony address that doesn't actually exist, you're already lost. You can't blame Apple, and neither should Google. 

 

Glad I have never had someone give me the wrong address for a place or i have never entered the wrong number for an address,... oh wait.... 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
just as Apple's Flyover is superior to Google Earth and Apple's directions are in some cases legal and safe while Google's are not.

 

 

Comparing Google earth with Apple maps is comparing apples and well oranges. Google is not  suggesting google earth is a navigation program while apple maps is offering its program and images as one. so yes people can be critical of apples use of flawed maps in a program thats supposed to be a navigation tool. 

 

 

Quote:

 

"8th & Folsom" and iOS 5 Maps correctly found it via Google's maps servers, just like the new version of Maps powered by Apple's servers. Which is exactly what users in New York would do when searching for an incorrect, ambiguous street address that returned something other than the expected result.

Interesting quirk in the search engine using the word "and" assumes Fulsom is the city while the "&" assumes its an intersection. 


The point is that apple eliminated an effective product while  apple CEO 

 

Quote:
Cook sent out an apology letter, in which he said Maps failed to live up to the standard Apple has for its products.

 

Its just simple apple prides itself on the almost religious mantra of being simple and effective but it failed. People need to stop defending the application and admit it was huge step backwards. Apple will fix it I am sure but its not something that will occur over night or even in a few years.

(PS I always have admired Apple (my first comp was an Apple IIe)  for its innovation and products but stop making excuses! This was an epic failure.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's "iLost" Motorola ad faked an address to "lose" iOS 6 Maps