or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google official calls Apple trustworthy, but jokes iOS Maps users are risking their lives
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google official calls Apple trustworthy, but jokes iOS Maps users are risking their lives - Page 3

post #81 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

They made them available on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. And, frankly, it doesn't require publishing to commit a copyright violation. Simply making a single illegal copy is the copyright violation. Making additional copies and distributing them -- i.e., returning book content to a web browser -- are separate offenses.

 

Your lies have simply gone too far in this instance. There is absolutely no possibility of credibly denying that Google broke the law by committing thousands of copyright violations. Brazenly attempting to do so shows us your true character and complete lack of honesty or decency.

 

 

Your words are harsh, and you are being dishonest. Google's goal was never to publish the whole works unless the works were in the public domain or the Universities in question owned the copyrights to academic works. Google was trying to do two things. First, make the text of the books available to search inquiry. If somebody searched for a particular topic, it would have gave users the option to include books in the result. It was only going to show snippets of works that were covered by copyright. Second, Google was going to try to form partnerships with authors to join up on selling the electronic copies that were protected or tell people where they could find these works. 

 

If you go to Google Books now, it tells users where to find the whole works, including stores other than Google. This can only help the authors, and it certainly benefits users. 

 

Again, Google undeniably copied the works, but a copyright is not an absolute monopoly. A copyright has to be viewed in the context of its original purpose to motivate authors to create works for the public benefit. When a court is deciding whether a copy is fair-use it balances four factors. The four factors judges consider are:

  • the purpose and character of the use
  • the nature of the copyrighted work
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market.

 

When balancing these four factors a Court would likely find Google's actions were very similar to Sony's. Like Sony, Google is/was copying whole works. However, the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted works, and the effect of the use upon a potential market all work in Google's favor. 

post #82 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It works pretty much like Dropbox and has the added security of being private.

Private being the key word here. How many times has the security of Dropbox been compromised? Three times? And yes, jragosta, I miss iDisk as well, fully agree with your post.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #83 of 111
Last night's QI recorded in 2009 played on ABC in Australia last night pointed out the flaws a SatNav (which is very popular in the UK). It claimed something like 400,000 accidents were put down to Satnav directions (way before iOS maps). Any kind of GPS gives bad directions - often taking you on non-optimal but major highway routes when a minor road will get you straight there.

The moral is not to trust everything to satnav/GPS - use your brain.

I recently ran both iOS maps and Google maps (invented here in Sydney!) on a long trip - they just suck in different ways. I think Google is trying to pin the common problems with GPS on iOS maps, which will improve anyway.

The other point on would you trust Google or your mayor - well publicly elected officials are supposed to be held accountable. Private companies can pretty much get away with what they will. Has anyone ever stopped to think that private companies are in effect communist regimes and would you trust a communist regime? Most of us in capitalist societies spend our lives ruled by a communist system of one kind or another.
post #84 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by vqro View Post

Stupid google is on a propaganda campaign against apple.  They're all taking turns being snarky, smug and insulting.  Well F U google.

I think the best way for us iOS and OS X users to react to that attitude boycott them. I've stopped using most Google apps and services minus some very basic and non-personal ones. 

post #85 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Yes, but the real issue is does the copying of the copyrighted material amount to copyright infringement? Not all copying of copyright works for commercial purposes amounts to infringement. Google is relying on a fair-use defense, which I think is a valid defense. 

 

Yes, you've said this before, that you're a lawyer, that you took classes in copyright law...

 

.. and you still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Google's copying of these books doesn't even remotely qualify as fair use in any way. They copied them in their entirety, they copied them with the intent to re-publish them, and they copied with the intent to use them to directly and indirectly generate revenues. And they did all this on a wholesale scale. And, no, they did not do it for educational, research or other purposes outlined as potentially fair use and they did not do it for the public good.

 

However, you illustrate well the point that when hiring a lawyer, you should make sure you get one who specializes in the area of law concerned, otherwise he may not have a clue what he's doing.

post #86 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Your words are harsh, and you are being dishonest. Google's goal was never to publish the whole works unless the works were in the public domain or the Universities in question owned the copyrights to academic works. Google was trying to do two things. First, make the text of the books available to search inquiry. If somebody searched for a particular topic, it would have gave users the option to include books in the result. It was only going to show snippets of works that were covered by copyright. Second, Google was going to try to form partnerships with authors to join up on selling the electronic copies that were protected or tell people where they could find these works. 

 

Revisionist history. Google was trying to do one thing, make money off these books without the copyright holder's permission. End of story. Anything else is a fairy tale.

post #87 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

... When a court is deciding whether a copy is fair-use it balances four factors. The four factors judges consider are:

  • the purpose and character of the use
  • the nature of the copyrighted work
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market.

 

...

 

 

And it's interesting that you've paraphrased the law to try to make your point, leaving out important points, here's the actual law [emphasis mine]:

 

Quote:
US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107:
 
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
 
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

 

1. Since Google copied all sorts of works, no generalization can be made in that regard. However, they did so entirely for commercial purposes, where the intent is clearly established that such purposes do not fall under fair use. That someone could then use the illegal copies Google made for, "nonprofit educational purposes," or for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research," is not relevant since that wasn't Google's purpose. Google's purpose was to profit by republishing these works.

 

2. Again, since Google copied all sorts of works, no generalization can be made on this factor.

 

3. They copied entire works, which would generally disqualify the copying from fair use, and especially when done for commercial purposes.

 

4. Again, because they engaged in wholesale infringement, this is difficult to gauge, but the effect has to be negative if universities and libraries no longer have to purchase copies (no wonder they got involved), and for low demand works, this would effectively destroy the market for them.

 

Furthermore, the wholesale, willful and methodical nature of the infringement also counts against them. Fair use was not intended to allow such wholesale copying of works, but to allow works and extracts from works to be used for the purposes outlined above. There was never any intent to allow someone to build a virtual library by invoking this clause. Google has absolutely no defense by invoking fair use, and it's either ignorance, fantasy or disingenuousness to say they do.

post #88 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Your words are harsh, and you are being dishonest. Google's goal was never to publish the whole works unless the works were in the public domain or the Universities in question owned the copyrights to academic works. Google was trying to do two things. First, make the text of the books available to search inquiry. If somebody searched for a particular topic, it would have gave users the option to include books in the result. It was only going to show snippets of works that were covered by copyright. Second, Google was going to try to form partnerships with authors to join up on selling the electronic copies that were protected or tell people where they could find these works. 

 

If you go to Google Books now, it tells users where to find the whole works, including stores other than Google. This can only help the authors, and it certainly benefits users. 

 

Again, Google undeniably copied the works, but a copyright is not an absolute monopoly. A copyright has to be viewed in the context of its original purpose to motivate authors to create works for the public benefit. When a court is deciding whether a copy is fair-use it balances four factors. The four factors judges consider are:

  • the purpose and character of the use
  • the nature of the copyrighted work
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market.

 

When balancing these four factors a Court would likely find Google's actions were very similar to Sony's. Like Sony, Google is/was copying whole works. However, the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted works, and the effect of the use upon a potential market all work in Google's favor. 

Thanks for the detailed response and analysis. A recent court ruling concerning the Google Books Project and the partner libraries addressed those same four points, and agreed with you on each of them. Guess you were paying attention in law school after all.1wink.gif

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/court-rules-book-scanning-is-fair-use-suggesting-google-books-victory/

 

"The Author's Guild has suffered another major setback in its fight to stop Google's ambitious book-scanning project. The Guild lost a key ally when Google settled with a coalition of major publishers last week. Now a judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright's fair use doctrine. While the decision doesn't guarantee that Google will win—that's still to be decided in a separate lawsuit—the reasoning of this week's decision bodes well for Google's case."

 

"There are four factors the courts consider in fair use cases. Judge Harold Baer sided squarely with the libraries on all four factors."

 

"The copyright scholar (and sometime Ars contributor) James Grimmelmann called the ruling a "near-complete victory" for the libraries. Indeed, he said, the decision "makes the case seem so lopsided that it makes the appeal into an uphill battle. Perhaps together with the AAP [American Association of Publishers] settlement, this is a moment for a reevaluation of the Authors Guild’s suit against Google. My estimate of the likelihood of settlement just went up substantially."

 

Techdirt has an update on the story saying the Author's Guild want's to appeal anyway, and also offering more details from Google's side.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02514721054/book-scanning-as-fair-use-google-makes-its-case-as-authors-guild-appeals-hathitrust-fair-use-ruling.shtml


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/9/13 at 6:58am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thanks for the detailed response and analysis. A recent court ruling concerning the Google Books Project and the partner libraries addressed those same four points, and agreed with you on each of them. Guess you were paying attention in law school after all.1wink.gif

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/court-rules-book-scanning-is-fair-use-suggesting-google-books-victory/

 

"The Author's Guild has suffered another major setback in its fight to stop Google's ambitious book-scanning project. The Guild lost a key ally when Google settled with a coalition of major publishers last week. Now a judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright's fair use doctrine. While the decision doesn't guarantee that Google will win—that's still to be decided in a separate lawsuit—the reasoning of this week's decision bodes well for Google's case."

 

"There are four factors the courts consider in fair use cases. Judge Harold Baer sided squarely with the libraries on all four factors."

 

"The copyright scholar (and sometime Ars contributor) James Grimmelmann called the ruling a "near-complete victory" for the libraries. Indeed, he said, the decision "makes the case seem so lopsided that it makes the appeal into an uphill battle. Perhaps together with the AAP [American Association of Publishers] settlement, this is a moment for a reevaluation of the Authors Guild’s suit against Google. My estimate of the likelihood of settlement just went up substantially."

 

All this means is that the libraries aren't going to be held accountable as co-conspirators. Nice try, though.

post #90 of 111

News Flash, I just read in Yahoo! that Eric Schmidt is selling off 42% of his stake in Google.  What does he know that he's not saying?   Does he see the writing on the wall that Google is finished and it's just a matter of time before Google gives up?  If Apple is slamming down lots of iPhone/IPad tablet business in government, corporate, and education market, and Google just can't make the in roads, then it's just a matter of time.  I think maybe Google is believing their own media hype.

 

I actually like Apple Maps and haven't found enough "deal breakers" to make me want to switch to a different Mapping app, but if I need to, I know there are others. But so far, I typically know where i'm going before i go there.  I've never had a GPS navigation system in any car that I've owned.  In fact, for all of the people that have one, I rarely see people use them.  I think they are for people that travel out of their local area, for people that work in the field where they constantly have to break out a Thomas guide.

post #91 of 111
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
What does he know that he's not saying?   Does he see the writing on the wall that Google is finished and it's just a matter of time before Google gives up?

 

That's wishful thinking from an Apple fan, I think. Nothing more.

post #92 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Some people keep saying this, but that's not my recollection, nor does it match up with old Google Maps reviews, which leaned towards high praise after it came out in 2005.   E.g.

About.com - 2005.  Five stars.  "Google Maps are incredible. They're very intuitive, well designed, interactive, and the search capabilities are amazing. While there are still some snags, the site is one to be utilized if you're looking for directions or maps of anyplace."


CNET - 2006. "
Google's map and directions service,
Google Maps Beta
, is out in a full release version called Google Local. Google Local rolls the phone book, maps, and driving directions into one big, interactive ball that's handy and just plain fun to use."


Google Maps was definitely one of my favorite smartphone apps back in 2006.  (Plus everyone loved their satellite views starting in 2005.)

Heck, Apple bent over backwards to put Google Maps into the iPhone at the last minute for its debut in 2007.  You don't do that for junk.

Even more importantly for the iPhone, Google had been using Maps to  collect cell tower stats from all the smartphones with GPS that had come before it.   This allowed the GPS-less first iPhone to later get location services by cell tower id.

So, no, I don't remember Google Maps getting panned at all.  Perhaps you're thinking of other, earlier map services.  

Amazing memory you have. So every review was positive then? No one had any problems what so ever?
There are lots of problems with google maps now, it's 2013 by the way.
Apple bending over backwards, so you worked at Apple at that time, you must have to make this remark?
They did not bend over backwards, they needed a map service and google's was the most mature at the time, and both companies had a much better relationship with one another back then.
Stop spinning, you are making me dizzy.
post #93 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

"Yahoo has entered into an advertising deal with Google by which the search engine giant will run its ads on some of Yahoo’s websites..."

You never stop do you?
At every opportunity, you rubbish Apple, directly or indirectly, I give you credence though, you do it really well, I call u an über troll.
May I ask why? I know it's to instill a sense of balance in us, to enlighten us, to show us the errors of our way?
Now I know, Apple is crap and the rest are the best. Thanks.
Where can I make my donation?


http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/02/08/yahoo-signs-an-online-advertising-deal-with-google/
post #94 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

 

What does Apple have to do with Yahoo? Perhaps you're confused because I'm not aware of anything.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 111
There are Forum members who, in their lame attempts (you know who u are), try to spin it, but nothing is accidental, everything that is said/written in the media has a purpose. I'm not going to spend my time here explaining it to you all, simply do the research and draw your own conclusions.
Google are in damage control having realized the enormity of the problem they now face with Apple's own maps.
Missing all that data and not being able to swamp users with ads must be not only bad business-wise but personally galling to the upper echelons at google land. Why else take any and every opportunity to belittle Apple?
On a personal level, I despise everything google stands for. What intrigues me is that people simply don't care what they are doing, I guess call it apathy or ignorance.
A company that will read personal emails and then spam that person with ads is simply too much for me.

Going of at a tangent, why has wonderful google removed one of the filter options in youtube? I don't have flash installed and in the past one could filter by google's video standard version that they thought would and should replace HTML5. It's now gone. I guess another one of their pet projects that has quietly died.
post #96 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What does Apple have to do with Yahoo? Perhaps you're confused because I'm not aware of anything.

You are funny, not.
A poster mentioned they hate google and will try and be google-free, they write yahoo would be their default search engine. Yet you had to jump in and mention yahoo-google business arrangement.
Now do you get it? Or u want me to use blocks for u?
post #97 of 111
GG read my posts I think you will now understand where I am coming from with respect to the Apple - google war.
Enough said me thinks.
post #98 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post


You are funny, not.
A poster mentioned they hate google and will try and be google-free, they write yahoo would be their default search engine. Yet you had to jump in and mention yahoo-google business arrangement.
Now do you get it? Or u want me to use blocks for u?

Since the OP was trying to avoid Google I think he'd appreciate knowing that Yahoo may also be using Google for targeted ads, wouldn't you agree? Better than discovering it later on.

 

As for whether you should block me, that's completely your choice. There's a few thousand visitors here that might discover some nugget of knowledge in one of my posts, or perhaps look at something differently than they did before.  You may not be one of those. If I'm right then ignore wouldn't be inappropriate. 

 

EDIT: It looks like English isn't your first language so perhaps you didn't intend to sound as snippy/arrogant as you did. If so my apology for misreading your tone.


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/9/13 at 1:57pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #99 of 111
Enough of the Google Maps is always right mess. Google Maps is frequently wrong. Addresses are frequently numbered wrong. I just googled my childhood apartment on Herkimer street in Brooklyn - and it's still wrong. Subways are also frequently mislabeled or outdated.

It's actually quite sad to see how frequently my friends end up in the wrong place and assume they've done something wrong because they accept Google Maps as law.

Last week my wife and I were out on a stormy night with our baby. She was following the directions from Google Maps and the place we arrived was completely wrong. She was so confused and started double-checking the address and her emails and wondering what she entered wrong. Then I re-mapped the address on my phone with Apple maps and found we were 7 city blocks away from the correct spot.
Thanks Google!
Thanks Apple.

Personally, I ain't trying to find a water station in the middle of the Australian outback, I'm just a NYC guy who travels upstate, and to Philly and northern Michigan every couple months; and Apple Maps hasn't led me wrong once %u2013 yet. I'm sure after I've used it for several years I will come across some errors, but Google Maps should by no means be accepted as infallible either.
post #100 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

Amazing memory you have. So every review was positive then? No one had any problems what so ever?

 

As I said, I'm open to someone finding some negative reviews.  I couldn't find any, myself.  Have you?

 

And yes, I mentioned that there were problems.  That didn't change the reviews.

 

Quote:

Apple bending over backwards, so you worked at Apple at that time, you must have to make this remark?

 

Perhaps you're not aware that it was recently revealed that Apple had no Maps app in the iPhone until the last minute.  They first met with Google on Halloween, which was only 2-1/2 months before the iPhone was revealed, and both sides worked like crazy to get Maps done in time.  Thus the valid phrase, "Apple bent over backwards to put Google Maps into the iPhone at the last minute for its debut in 2007."

 

Despite your attempt to spin that as negative, it's not.  It's just a fact.

post #101 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Since the OP was trying to avoid Google I think he'd appreciate knowing that Yahoo may also be using Google for targeted ads, wouldn't you agree? Better than discovering it later on.

As for whether you should block me, that's completely your choice. There's a few thousand visitors here that might discover some nugget of knowledge in one of my posts, or perhaps look at something differently than they did before.  You may not be one of those. If I'm right then ignore wouldn't be inappropriate. 

EDIT: It looks like English isn't your first language so perhaps you didn't intend to sound as snippy/arrogant as you did. If so my apology for misreading your tone.

English is not first language. Pleeeaaaazzzzzeeeeee !
Why would I wat to ignore you ? I did not say that, perhaps English is not your first language?
post #102 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

As I said, I'm open to someone finding some negative reviews.  I couldn't find any, myself.  Have you?

And yes, I mentioned that there were problems.  That didn't change the reviews.

Perhaps you're not aware that it was recently revealed that Apple had no Maps app in the iPhone until the last minute.  They first met with Google on Halloween, which was only 2-1/2 months before the iPhone was revealed, and both sides worked like crazy to get Maps done in time.  Thus the valid phrase, "
Apple bent over backwards to put Google Maps into the iPhone at the last minute for its debut in 2007."


Despite your attempt to spin that as negative, it's not.  It's just a fact.

No you are spinning yet again. Bending over backwards as you stated inferred Apple were pleading with google to get their maps onto the iPhone.
So every review google maps had was shown in a positive light? Wow what an amazing product, perfect from version 1.0, this is a first in the whole industry.
post #103 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

English is not first language. Pleeeaaaazzzzzeeeeee !
Why would I wat to ignore you ? I did not say that, perhaps English is not your first language?

To GG, when I wrote blocks, I was referring to plastic blocks that teachers use to explain things to toddlers, it was a quip, so don't take it personal. Yes, I can see how you mentioned that English may not be my first language, going over my post I can see too many typos.
Any way back to the heart of the matter, I don't believe in blocking people.

I am most critical of Apple, I may not post it here, on the other hand I don't recollect you having anything negative to write with regards to the many bad things google does, although I may be wrong.
post #104 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post


To GG, when I wrote blocks, I was referring to plastic blocks that teachers use to explain things to toddlers, it was a quip, so don't take it personal. Yes, I can see how you mentioned that English may not be my first language, going over my post I can see too many typos.
Any way back to the heart of the matter, I don't believe in blocking people.

I am most critical of Apple, I may not post it here, on the other hand I don't recollect you having anything negative to write with regards to the many bad things google does, although I may be wrong.

Yes you would be wrong. I've criticized Google (for example their continuance of SEP injunction cases post-Moto) when I feel they deserve it, and been even harsher with Samsung. Something I very seldom do is actually criticize or complain about Apple, Some here misconstrue anything not anti-Google or anti-Android as necessarily anti-Apple.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #105 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

No you are spinning yet again. Bending over backwards as you stated inferred Apple were pleading with google to get their maps onto the iPhone.

 

I would say that's your own prejudice inferring such.   Or perhaps the phrase  is taken differently where you are.

 

So every review google maps had was shown in a positive light? Wow what an amazing product, perfect from version 1.0, this is a first in the whole industry.
 

You keep throwing up strawmen..  I never said it was perfect.  If you check the thread, I was replying to the notion that:

 

Quote:
Google Maps was widely panned for...the exact same issues facing Apple Maps

 

When the fact is, it was not widely panned when it came out.  Quite the contrary.  

post #106 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Actually, yes, that first five star review was from March 12, 2005.   The earliest mention I find is in this Feb 9, 2005 blog, which talked about "how the astonishing Google Maps service is accomplished."

You're welcome to dig up any negative reviews from back then and show them to us.   Who knows, perhaps my memory is faulty.  But you have to prove it 1smile.gif

My only negative memory is that, at first, a lot of addresses seemed offset by two houses.  However, the desktop version let you move markers to correct that (within reason).   Everyone liked that part, because few road or business maps were accurate back then.

As for the mobile version, which is what we're really talking about, it was very well received.  There was nothing else like it.


Sure, but that only speaks badly for Apple today, not Google back then.

True, but, again, you bring up that you are talking about a desktop web app from 2005. And it did fare very favorable to what was available at the time. Not arguing that point. My point was were these reviews from the days/weeks after launch, and you accurately cite one. That answered my question. The bigger issue, yes, for Apple, is that expectations of a default maps application on a late 2012 smartphone are, rightly so, exponentially higher that a desktop/web app was in early 2005.

The only issues I see about Apple Maps today are references, still, to the "widely panned" launch of Apple Maps. Journalists are lazy today. I would love to see just one early reviewer take their critical review of Apple Maps from mid/late September 2012 and redo the exact same test now, and show us the improvements made or highlight what is, five months later, still incorrect. I would also like to know if that journalist, back in September when writing the article, actually took the few seconds to report the inaccuracies. Find me such an article and i would be shocked because I haven't seen one.

You also point out that Google Maps were normally only off a couple of houses. There were issues the, there are still issues. For instance, my neighborhood. First built in 2006. Seven years ago. Shows up on Google Maps and Apple Maps. Of course, to go anywhere from my house, Apple correctly tells me the roads to use, where Google Maps tells me to get to a road that used to be here but was removed in 2005. Yesterday, for S & Gs, when taking my daughter to a friends house, I used my iPhone with Apple Maps, and my wife's with the Google Maps app. Both were nearly identical. Google wanted me to take a left one street earlier than Apple (maybe to avoid a light?) and then a right, where Apple had me stay on the road and take a left at the light. The difference here is that Google would have taken me straight into the neighborhood, but cutting across both lanes of traffic, where Apple had me taking the left at the light and a right into the neighborhood. One could argue that the Apple route was safer. But then everything lined up again, until the very end. Google told me to turn left, Apple a right. What would have happened if I took the left Google told me to? Aside from driving through a fence, I would have gone into a pond. Apple had that right, too.

Big issues? Not to me, but proves that all mapping software has issues, and if it was any company other than Apple, it would not have been nearly as big of an issue, if made to be an issue at all. I guess that is Apple's own fault, they have set expectations of perfection, where other companies are comfortable with good enough.
post #107 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

True, but, again, you bring up that you are talking about a desktop web app from 2005. And it did fare very favorable to what was available at the time. Not arguing that point. My point was were these reviews from the days/weeks after launch, and you accurately cite one. That answered my question. 

 

Excellent !    I would note again, though, that I was originally only comparing mobile app to mobile app;  it was others who brought up the 2005 web app.

 

Google's J2ME based mobile map app for both feature and smartphones first came out in 2006, and was widely praised for the ability to search nearby, to pan the map easily, and for being able to click on search result phone numbers to dial them.

 

The bigger issue, yes, for Apple, is that expectations of a default maps application on a late 2012 smartphone are, rightly so, exponentially higher that a desktop/web app was in early 2005.

 

I agree with that, and most of the rest of your post.

 

Again, I'm only pointing out that it is historically incorrect to claim that Google Maps Mobile had the same kind of poor initial public perception and reviews, as the much later Apple Maps did.  It just didn't happen, for all sorts of reasons, many of which you have pointed out.   People should pick a different, more valid, example.

 

Regards.

post #108 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Excellent !    I would note again, though, that I was originally only comparing mobile app to mobile app;  it was others who brought up the 2005

True. Though the issue I feel, and many others likely do, is that you can only separate the desktop/browser app from the mobile app if you are speaking of issues with the performance. I would be surprised if the back end data is different for those two Google versions. So to that effect, Google mobile maps benefited from the 18+ months and lower expectations of the desktop version.

The reason I bring this up is that, again, separating the two google versions implies the mechanics of the apps are better.

The Apple Maps app is one of the most impressive, IMHO, mapping apps out there. The app itself, AFAIK, has zero issues or complaints. What the choir of complaints deals with it the data. That is something that is not directly tied to the app. The app works and is beautiful. The data behind it is what drives the complaints and is what is improving daily.

Again, the burden is Apple's. they knew the importance of Maps (a likely driver in their decision to abandon Google) and moved ahead. They didn't have the desktop version first to get better at with more forgiveness.
post #109 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Google is starting to feel the pain of losing the default Maps position on iOS to Apple Maps.

 

Wait until they lose search and maps on both iOS and Mac OS X.

 

Time will tell.

Exactly, AppleSauce. I'd like to have 'Start Page' as my default search on both iOS and OS. Start Page uses google but sends your inquiry out so you aren't tracked by Google. Duckduckgo is another pretty good search engine so it should be included. I've sent Tim a note on the matter. Maybe if more do the same he might think about doing it. Now that would set Google to worry.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #110 of 111
Although I prefer to use a maps app with maps onboard, to save on cellular usage, I rely on Apple's Maps app to get me out of situations that other maps apps get me into. Several times Apple's Maps app has guided me back on track where other maps apps have either led me astray or when I have lost confidence in another apps navigation ability. Not that Apple's Maps app is perfect, it's just dependable when other apps are not. It's also helpful for a realistic arrival time, when other apps just get the timing consistently wrong ( Navigon, Magellan and CoPilot, among others )

Cheers !
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #111 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Google technology ambassador Michael T. Jones speaks with "One Plus One.
""I certainly trust Apple, and I trust Google, and I trust Microsoft, for that matter.
 

He obviously doesn't use his Google Maps.

The number of serious Google Maps errors I experienced last year was unbelievable. I was a big user of Google Maps, but when it took me to the wrong side of the I5 last Aug  to get to my hotel south of Everett, WA, I'd had enough!

I had to go into another hotel to get directions and a sign beside their front desk said it all:

"Don't use Google Maps to find us!"

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google official calls Apple trustworthy, but jokes iOS Maps users are risking their lives