You took a complex issue and reduced it to two options. You specifically stated that someone had to choose from those two options and then used Occam's razor to select one of the options. Logically, that's invalid when there are three or more options actually available.

Yes, you COULD HAVE presented a third or fourth option (in which case it would not have been a false dichotomy argument), but you didn't. So don't pretend that the fact that you had other options makes this any less of a false dichotomy.

Only if you've redefined troll as someone who consistently and regularly points out all the flaws in your logic.

So any device that's imperfect is a failure. Got it.

Besides, you're completely ignoring the fact that there are two listings for 'Mildura' - the province and the city. When you simply enter 'Mildura', it sends you to the center of the province. When you enter a street address, it takes you to the correct street address. If you enter 'Mildura city', it takes you to locations inside the city.

Not clear why it's Apple's fault that Australia named both the city and the province the same. How is Maps supposed to know which one you want?

Yes, but it's not as simple as you suggest. The fundamental problem is that the region and the city have the same name. When you type 'Mildura', it assumes you want the region and sends you to the middle of the region. If you type 'Mildura city', it sends you to the city. If you type a street address, it takes you to the street address.

For something familiar to Americans, look up cities which have their state names:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_states_have_a_city_with_the_same_name

I tried 'Utah' and 'Delaware'. In both cases, the word took me to the middle of the state, NOT the city. Apparently, when given the choice between a city and a state with the same name, Maps chooses the state - which is what it did in Mildura, too. I don't think that's unreasonable behavior.

There is one exception, though: New York. When you simply enter 'New York', it takes you to the city. Presumably, they chose to override the standard 'select the state rather than the city when both have the same name' rule because of the size and population of New York City.

It's not at all clear that it's an error - just confusion caused by the use of a city and a region with the same name.

Can I ask a dumb question that none of you people in 400 posts have failed to question? Why is this discussion about "Google maps vs iOS maps"? The app is iOS 5 Maps vs. iOS 6 Maps. The data for the former is sourced from Google, while the data for the latter was sourced from Tom Tom. Both version of Maps were developed by Apple.

So if its the Apps you don't like, call out Apple. But if the discussion is about inaccurate map data, why isn't this framed as "Google vs Tom Tom data"?

 

No, the number of posts here represent a relatively small number of people who are not what you'd call typical Apple consumers - they're mostly techies or Android/Google fans. 

 

Incidentally, it turns out that the problem was caused by a POI problem. Apple was using data provided by the Australian Gazetteer, the official go-to guide for this type of information. Yes, the dataset came from the state of Victoria itself. Which brings me back to my original point: the problem is the data, not the app, and this will not be discovered until it is actually used. If the state of Victoria can't provide correct geographical data then that won't be fixed by 'testing' Map applications inside a bunker.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/10/apple_maps_ghost_mildura/

 

Because calling out Apple makes for a fan fodder .... :-)

And paid shills.

Didn't TomTom claim their data was fine; it was the way Apple was using it that was producing bad results? Even if TomTom is the problem then we have to ask, why would Apple use their data if it was that bad?

But I still would like to know why Apple feels it needs to be in the mapping business. It's not something you can do quickly or on the cheap. Are the only options Google maps or Apple doing their own solution?

Apple doesn't have to tell you why. They made a decision based on what they know and their resources and circumstances. Unless you know more about running a computer company than Apple, you're not in a position to judge.

i can have an opinion though and that is I don't think Apple needs to be in the mapping business. Stick to the things they do really well. But if Cook and Co. think it's absolutely necessary for them to have their own mapping solution then spend whatever you have to so you can get it right. I read somewhere that Nokia has spent something like $8B to build out a maps product. Is Apple willing to spend whatever it takes to get this right and be a real competitor to established services out there like Google Maps?

And why in the world would anyone care what your opinion is? What basis is there for thinking that your opinion is of any value?

Apple's management team (including Jobs who was involved when they started into mapping) has shown themselves to be one of the most talented, successful corporate management teams EVER. They made a decision to enter mapping based on what they knew.

Now, you don't have the facts. You don't have their experience. You don't know their constraints. You don't know their talent. And we're supposed to give a hoot what you think?

That is not a stupid question, obviously. Unfortunately many discussions also revolve around the Android/iPhone market share, whilst that should be either Android vs iOS or some phone manufacturer vs iPhone.

Look I could care less if YOU give a "hoot" what I think. But I can be fairly certain I'm not the only one asking this question. I don't care how brilliant Apple's management team is. No company or executive is Infallible. Case in point the two Apple executives recently fired. One who was hired by Cook and fired after being on the job for less an a year. Even the great Apple can make mistakes. Maybe maps will turn out to be one of the most brilliant decisions Jobs & Co. made. But there's nothing wrong with wondering why they did it. Just like everyone who has an opinion on whether Apple should sell a TV set or a set top box. None of use are privy to those discussions either.

Huh? 

 

For the same reason anyone would care what your opinion is...

 

or mine...

 

or any other forum member's.

 

EDIT;

Coming from a "businessman" I'd figure you already knew why you should care.  You've never asked a customer for his opinion of your product? 

Edited by Gatorguy - 12/11/12 at 6:35am

 

Clearly if your opinion doesn't match his, you:

 

A. Shouldn't have one

B. No one should care what it is

 

/s

 

Yes, this is done ALL the time when making comparisons. Using your logic, it would be nearly impossible to make any comparisons without setting up false dichotomy/trichotomy etc. Dumbest thing I have heard today. 

 

Let's say I wanted to have a discussion about the difference in types of vegetables, squash and tubers maybe. Starting out my conversation with "Assume we have 2 vegetables, a zucchini and a turnip" does not automatically qualify as a false dichotomy. Just because I only chose 2 vegetables doesn't suggest that these are the ONLY 2 vegetables in existence; explicitly or implicitly. Your inability to comprehend this is startling, and if you are indeed a 'teacher', I would like to know where so that I can make a mental note of where not to move my children...

 

 

This is a fabrication that YOU have decided to make up. In fact, I never said that anyone had to choose ANY option. The two options were selected based upon previous discussions being debated for illustration. Heck, even your own definition for a false dichotomy notes the use of verbiage like 'either' and 'or'. Notice how my post did not contain this verbiage in my statement?

 

Considering any debate with you must be reduced to a reading comprehension lesson, I'm afraid this will be the end of my conversation regarding this. Cheers :)

Edited by e_veritas - 12/11/12 at 8:47am

To Apple and Eddie Cue:

Congratulations on a job well done!

By recognizing this problem and correcting it quickly, you turned a negative into a positive!

+++ for Apple maps.

Maybe the true measure for a maps app should be how quickly problems are detected and corrected.
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 12/11/12 at 7:55am

Problems can be corrected in a matter of minutes on google maps...
 

See this page and my answer to Hill60 at posts 51 and 52 :

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153318/mapping-app-powered-by-google-maps-pulled-from-app-store/40

Edited by ClemyNX - 12/11/12 at 7:54am

Can be != are. 💩
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 12/11/12 at 8:12am

 

 

When was the last time TomTom got anyone a headline?

Exactly. The last real piece of journalism was a story about a fireman rescuing some children from a burning orphanage. In 1943. Since then there hasn't been any real news. Only entertainment.

Playing on words? They are.
Try to ask for a correction on the place I linked to in maps... we'll see.

That little road I circled is called Peck CL.

 

 

I'll ask for a correction on Google Maps, and you'll do the same on Apple Maps. We'll see which one is faster.

You guys always talk much, but never show practical proof. We'll see, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not.

 

Technically speaking, the Austrailian police recognized the problem. Apple and Eddie corrected it after the fact.

 

That's not to say that their correction time shouldn't be commended.

 

Great Scott!  He was a "teacher"?  I feel great pity for the kids that had to endure through his class. 

 

I doubt if we'll ever know... but I wonder how the Apple Maps people became aware of the issue...

 

Did someone report the problem or did someone at Apple Maps read the blogs?

Oh well... Apple took it a bit too far when they thought they could keep the project in house, become independent from Google and still do well! In fact not just well but beat the competition on a field where G maps has years of experience?!?? I think that's an excess of corporate confidence. And the truth is that there are a bunch of emerging apps out there that do a great job and yet receive not enough attention! I think these two are some good examples http://www.mevvy.com/tools/inrix-traffic/ or http://www.mevvy.com/tools/waze/in the end why fuel the giants when we all need business and specially startups??? 

 

People here, have posted that they have reported map issues to Google for years and that they have not been corrected.

 

 

I believe that both you and I have better things to do than to scour for arcane map errors...

 

 

Looking to the future, what interests me is the 3D Flyover capability of Apple maps.  I wonder why major cities like: Paris, Washington, DC, etc. do not have 3D  flyover maps.

 

Is it a misplaced concern about security?  An ownership of the data/images issues?  A resource issue?  A cost/revenue issue?

 

I don't pretend to know, but other cities have 3D Flyover maps -- cities like: Rome;  Berlin;   Florence;  Copenhagen;  Barthelona...

 

Probably enough people used the error tool.  The bit of publicity probably helped fast-track the correction.

FYI:

-> http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/terms_maps.html

"(b) Certain Content is provided under license from third parties, including but not limited to TomTom Global Content BV ("TomTom"), and is subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to TomTom and/or such third parties. You may be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this Content. Your use of TomTom Content, including but not limited to printing or use in marketing or promotional materials, is subject to additional restrictions located in the Legal Notices page."

I'm particularly concerned about Paris because it's were I live, but I think I know why. It's forbidden for planes to fly over the city, and no planes = no flyover.

I also lived in Rome and it looks great in flyover. Milan has small coverage but a lot more detailed than that of huge cities like LA imo (smaller surface so better resolution).

*Barcelona

 

Ah... Sad to hear that about Paris... But I couldn't find any 3D Flyover maps in France???

 

I did some surfing and all I could find was:

 

 

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressions_de_France

 

I have a web acquaintance who lives in Paris and does video filming and video editing.  So I put the question to him:  "Can you point me to any videos of flyovers in Paris (or any other French locations}?"

 

I certainly hope he finds some videos, as this would indicate that a possibility exists for 3D Flyover mapping

I was? Where and when? Are you done with me due to lack of arguments? Because you've posted a lie! You were the one who was found to be foolishly posting without even understanding the context of the thread, remember? That makes the content of all your posts a huge straw man fallacy, because you were projecting me in a position that I never took all along and attacking that position, and you did that out of pure stupidity, nothing else, becausr you could have easily read the context on page 3.

Your retardation is fully proven. Don't feel ashamed, though; you're pretty average over here.

Has everyone forgotten the errors in Google Maps in the early days of the service? How about MapQuest? I have personal experience with Tom-Tom inaccuracies as I use a Tom-Tom device in my car. The bottom line is that ANY database is going to have errors, and while many errors will be corrected over time, some will always remain. As an earlier poster observed, making critical travel decisions in unknown territory relying on just ONE source of information is foolish in the extreme.

 

Yes, we're done with you because you lack arguments. You've reduced yourself to absurdity.

That's not even close to being true. If one where an honest and intelligent debater, they would present the right number of arguments. If there are only two options, they present two. If there are three options, they present all three. And so on. No false dichotomy if the person is honest.

OTOH, your argument leads to the logical absurdity that there's no such thing as a fallacious argument. No matter how ridiculous of an argument you present, it's not fallacious because you COULD HAVE used a different argument. That is clearly absurd.

ROTFLMAO.

So your argument is that the false dichotomy wasn't really a false dichotomy because you COULD HAVE added some of the other alternatives, but didn't?

The argument you presented is the argument you presented. You can't fall back on other arguments that you could have, but didn't, present.

By the same logic, try this:
Shoot someone and then say "Officer - I didn't really shoot that person because I COULD HAVE gone fishing instead".
Edited by jragosta - 12/11/12 at 1:35pm

Yes, of course, but if you bring a half-assed product to the market to replace a competitor's offer in your platform, your product better be better than the competition or you must be prepared for the complaints. This is what the Apple fanboys don't get; people complain about Apple Maps because Apple replaced the existing Google Maps app with it, therefore Apple is fully deserving of all the bad press they've been receiving.

Dude, you're denying reality now! I lack arguments? How can you make such a claim? What is it that I did not successfully refute for you to claim that I lack arguments? I'm asking questions; why aren't you answering them?

Using your own words against you: Why are you dodging my questions? You claim that I lost the argument, I lost where and and you gave no answer, thus not satisfying your burden of proof. How come, then, do you claim that I am the one without arguments?

Really, tell me, because I want to believe that you are not a complete retard!

That's not true. He doesn't completely lack arguments. He only lacks good arguments.

For example, he presented the argument that no matter how ridiculous his arguments are, they are still valid because he COULD HAVE presented a different argument.

That part is true.

Speaking of dodging questions:

Apple's Maps has x number of errors.

Google's Maps has y number of errors.

You have been consistently claiming that Apple's Maps is not as good as Google's Maps because of the number of errors (which is the entire point of this thread). For that claim to be correct, you must have evidence that x > y. So where is the evidence and what are x and y?

I'm still waiting for you to answer my previous reply to you, where I refuted everythyng you said.


This is a lie. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong with a quote.


It is clear to me, at this point, that both of you are ignoring my posts simply because you can not refute them, which is why you are replying to each other rather than me.

No, I have not. Cite the comment where I did it or accept defeat. This is a straw man fallacy.