Until Siri, voice commands were a gimmick and many, especially fAndroids, believe voice commands are still a gimmick although this difference may be due to the conversational interface with personalization, semantic analysis and context awareness.
LOL, you are kidding right?
Siri has at best 65% accuracy from what I have experienced. Words get jumbled all the time and I'm constantly kicked out to searching the web. So now i am forced to talk slowly and in perfect english. Not only that, but its much faster many times to just open the browser and type in a search than to say it to siri....wait a while....have it bring a result which isn't the one you want.....try again....wait a while.....have siri ask you if you want to search the web.
Then you have the problem of siri being dependant on online data speed.
Until voice communication is like talking to a human, i.e. you don't need to use perfect english (or some programmers idea of perfect english), it can detect and decifer dialect, and it can do so without the "wait a while period" and it gets it right the first time 99% of the time........voice is nothing but a gimmick.
Until voice communication is like talking to a human, i.e. you don't need to use perfect english (or some programmers idea of perfect english), it can detect and decifer dialect, and it can do so without the "wait a while period" and it gets it right the first time 99% of the time........voice is nothing but a gimmick.
Siri is "like talking to a human."
No comment about your inability speak. You have demonstrated my comments perfectly, "...voice commands were a gimmick and many, especially fAndroids, believe voice commands are still a gimmick..."
To the end user I don't think it matters if it was Google invented or Google acquired tech.
Good enough is also a very hard problem for maps. Just "Can I see my house?" requires massive amounts of up-to-date data.
ps 100 cities sounds impressive but that probably includes lots of small cities. Just San Francisco and Silicon Valley is something like a dozen separate cities on its own.
Please re-read the entire thread. You risk posting more absurd comments.
No comment about your inability speak. You have demonstrated my comments perfectly, "...<span style="background-color:rgb(226,225,225);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:'lucida grande', verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">voice commands were a gimmick and many, especially fAndroids, believe voice commands are still a gimmick..."</span>
And what is the world wide map coverage going to be like? How about street view, which is now available for an incredible number of cities around the world?
I hope this move by Apple doesn't put us back 20 years. It would be a reason enough for me to abandon the platform if the maps suck.
You could also not upgrade to the latest version of iOS.
Actually, I am expecting to be be blown away by something that far exceeds Google. Apple don't normally enter a new area, be it phones or tablets and now serious mapping, without making everything that went before obsolete.
Of course at first many won't get it, as with iPhone and the 'you can't type with two thumbs on a tiny plastic keyboard' that greeted it, so I fully expect many to scream for a year or two that Apple failed. Only when their favorite products start copying Apple will they change their tune. By which time of course the patent case will be going to court. .
True. The responses on the unveiling of the first iPad were also lukewarm: "it's just a big iPod touch"
Me too, however when you are an Apple fan you tend to have selective amnesia. Apple has made some crap too. Performa TV, inkjet printers , IIci, emate, emac, even the first iMacs had a lot of hardware issues.
Apart from the crap, they also tend to forget about things. Like putting volume hardware buttons on the first iPod touch.
Expansion of choice is always good so hopefully users get to choose. However I hope Apple is at least caching OpenStreetMap rather than just free riding.
More like you hope they are NOT using openstreetmap. To this day they still misplell the name of my street.
I live in barcant ave, not barcan ave, as openstreetmap insists. Bing and Google have it spot on though.
I had a IIci for my business and it was one of the best computers I've ever used. Very easy to upgrade, fast and highly dependable. One of Apple's most successful computers.
I think you got your model numbers mixed up.
IIsi maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Really? I hated everything they released after the IIfx until the 9500. All those si ci xi were mediocre at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
IIci??!
I had a IIci for my business and it was one of the best computers I've ever used. Very easy to upgrade, fast and highly dependable. One of Apple's most successful computers.
I think you got your model numbers mixed up.
IIsi maybe.
FYI:
First, I would hardly call the Iici one of the modern era iMacs. Came from the genealogy of the Mac II and IIcx (the only outward diff between the IIci and the IIcx was the ports and the user was offered a faster clock for the CPU. The IIci had a direct slot that was designed to support a cache to up its performance. Apple re-engineered the Iicx so that it was exactly the same as the IIci and went thru all the testing done but decided to not introduce the newer IIcx which would have been about $75 in parts cost alone because the press at the time was saying that Apple was introducing computers and then killing them months later (would have been about 8 mod since first IIcx went out). The code name at release were Atlantic and Pacific but alas Pacific was the only one to live past testing. I also allowed Apple to continue to charge about a grand more of the Ilci than the Ilcx and differentiated the two with the available cache which as I remember was about $250 and gave you about an 8-12% bump in speed in the synthetic benchmarks. It also would haven only taken days for someone to hack a IIcx to figure out replacing a single clock chip gave them a IIci (<$1.00 part and some simple soldering to save a grand -- think people would have been pissed much to find that out). (BTW: I was at Apple at the time -- just a few months before the '89 California World Series aka the 7.2 Loma Prieta quake).
The IIci was one of the most cost effective and popular machines available and sold at a great clip even after the Mac IIfx was released since at the time RAM was very expensive and few needed the 3 extra NuBus slots and heftier power supply that came as part of the Mac IIfx although it was 'Wicked Fast' it had a price tag to match. Those of us that were developers or those doing photoshop type work and could also afford to max out the RAM were probably the primary consumers of the Mac IIfx.
University's loved the IIci for its balance of power, cost, and footprint -- even if it did cost upwards of $3500 with a video card and no monitor. I loved using them in a bind, supporting them and installing them both at the University and on our research vessel where space was was a premium.
I had a IIci for my business and it was one of the best computers I've ever used. Very easy to upgrade, fast and highly dependable. One of Apple's most successful computers.
I think you got your model numbers mixed up.
IIsi maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Sorry I was thinking of the lc
Yuck! The performa were all different and there were so many different models numbers you could not compare any of them (but that was the point I guess). Its kind of like buying a mattress here in the US. You can go to a big name store at the mall or a furniture store and although they all have models that are very similar if you compare the specs the manufacturers change the names for the sellers so it is difficult to compare them and guarantees that no one can get the on the 'we will beat any other store with a lower price on the same model".
Then of course there was the follow on LC, LCii, and LCiii. Not to hard to tell why customers were confused about the product line in those days (thats without getting into the clone wars a bit latter).
The iPhone map app is very old. The google maps on the Android is just way better. I for one, can't wait for the iPhone map update.
What do you mean by that? There are two distinct aspects to Maps on the iPhone. There is the app itself and there is Google backend that it pulls its data. Do you mean the app is "very old" or do you mean the data from Google is "very old?" Can you explain either case as compared to Android and what version of Android you are referring if the former?
Most (or should I say all) of the posters here are missing one important factor.
Apple might not have Maps as good as what Google has - it might not have StreetView coverage for as many cities worldwide as Google has - but that is besides the point. The point is, can Apple provide a solution that is many times better than the current Maps application on the iPhone? The answer to that is a resounding YES.
Maps on the iPhone is pathetic. There are no turn by turn directions. There is no Street View. There is no traffic capability. There is very basic functionality to do Geotagging, etc - you can at best bookmark locations on your device - cannot make your locations publicly available. Even simple functionality like getting GPS coordinates of any location is ridiculously complex in the current Maps app.
This is the low hurdle that Apple needs to cross - so obviously it is guaranteed that Apple will cross that hurdle easily. As for the Maps data itself, Open Street Map is for the most part a money issue, not a technology issue. With the support of Apple, it is very likely that OSM can improve the quality and accuracy of the maps tremendously.
Google is trying to steal Apple's thunder by announcing 3D Maps on June 6th - but really this does not matter. Apple is in a no loss situation here - whatever they come up with will be better than the current Maps app.
The only way for Google to steal Apple's thunder would be to launch a full blown version of Maps for iOS - with all the features that Android has. If Google does that, Apple's launch will be muted - because no one would want a version from Apple that has lesser features and lesser accuracy than the Google version. But even if this happens, it is a win-win for Apple's customers - and therefore for Apple itself!
Most (or should I say all) of the posters here are missing one important factor.
Apple might not have Maps as good as what Google has - it might not have StreetView coverage for as many cities worldwide as Google has - but that is besides the point. The point is, can Apple provide a solution that is many times better than the current Maps application on the iPhone? The answer to that is a resounding YES.
Maps on the iPhone is pathetic. There are no turn by turn directions. There is no Street View. There is no traffic capability. There is very basic functionality to do Geotagging, etc - you can at best bookmark locations on your device - cannot make your locations publicly available. Even simple functionality like getting GPS coordinates of any location is ridiculously complex in the current Maps app.
This is the low hurdle that Apple needs to cross - so obviously it is guaranteed that Apple will cross that hurdle easily. As for the Maps data itself, Open Street Map is for the most part a money issue, not a technology issue. With the support of Apple, it is very likely that OSM can improve the quality and accuracy of the maps tremendously.
Google is trying to steal Apple's thunder by announcing 3D Maps on June 6th - but really this does not matter. Apple is in a no loss situation here - whatever they come up with will be better than the current Maps app.
The only way for Google to steal Apple's thunder would be to launch a full blown version of Maps for iOS - with all the features that Android has. If Google does that, Apple's launch will be muted - because no one would want a version from Apple that has lesser features and lesser accuracy than the Google version. But even if this happens, it is a win-win for Apple's customers - and therefore for Apple itself!
"Maps simply needs to be "good enough" although the solution will far surpass that standard." - MacBook Pro
In all seriousness, have you ever used an iPhone?
Maps does have turn-by-turn directions, are you referring to dynamic routing (which the Apple iPhone does not have)
Maps does have Street View, in fact, the implementation is so elegant I expect the user interface to remain substantially the same
Maps does provide traffic information which appears to be exactly the same data as Google Maps on Android-based smartphones
Maps can share your location via email, SMS/MMS or Tweet for those who want to broadcast or narrowcast their location to friends or family that capability is provided in the "Find Friends" app
I do agree that the bar is set fairly low though. Maps doesn't need to compete with Google Maps on Android, any new version of Maps need only compete with the current version of Maps.
Comments
Funny thing is
If it was Apple who had maps first, and then Samsung came out with Smaps, the entire internet would be all "OMFG, All Samsung can do is Copy"
But here we have Apple blatantly ripping off Google maps, and its all good.
Makes sense.........
Except in browser google maps (and labels on them) are not high resolution enough for retina display and look rather aliased on iPad 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Until Siri, voice commands were a gimmick and many, especially fAndroids, believe voice commands are still a gimmick although this difference may be due to the conversational interface with personalization, semantic analysis and context awareness.
LOL, you are kidding right?
Siri has at best 65% accuracy from what I have experienced. Words get jumbled all the time and I'm constantly kicked out to searching the web. So now i am forced to talk slowly and in perfect english. Not only that, but its much faster many times to just open the browser and type in a search than to say it to siri....wait a while....have it bring a result which isn't the one you want.....try again....wait a while.....have siri ask you if you want to search the web.
Then you have the problem of siri being dependant on online data speed.
Until voice communication is like talking to a human, i.e. you don't need to use perfect english (or some programmers idea of perfect english), it can detect and decifer dialect, and it can do so without the "wait a while period" and it gets it right the first time 99% of the time........voice is nothing but a gimmick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
Until voice communication is like talking to a human, i.e. you don't need to use perfect english (or some programmers idea of perfect english), it can detect and decifer dialect, and it can do so without the "wait a while period" and it gets it right the first time 99% of the time........voice is nothing but a gimmick.
Siri is "like talking to a human."
No comment about your inability speak. You have demonstrated my comments perfectly, "...voice commands were a gimmick and many, especially fAndroids, believe voice commands are still a gimmick..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
To the end user I don't think it matters if it was Google invented or Google acquired tech.
Good enough is also a very hard problem for maps. Just "Can I see my house?" requires massive amounts of up-to-date data.
ps 100 cities sounds impressive but that probably includes lots of small cities. Just San Francisco and Silicon Valley is something like a dozen separate cities on its own.
Please re-read the entire thread. You risk posting more absurd comments.
Isn't English spelled with a capital?
You could also not upgrade to the latest version of iOS.
True. The responses on the unveiling of the first iPad were also lukewarm: "it's just a big iPod touch"
Apart from the crap, they also tend to forget about things. Like putting volume hardware buttons on the first iPod touch.
Please, yes! Not that I need a new one as I'm using the latest already. Still, just as a confirmation that they aren't abandoning it would be great.
I get a question mark instead of a picture on my iPad, was it a good one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Will the maps icon be updated to the new HQ location once it's finished?
I'd hope so. I'm glad someone else thought of that.
However I hope Apple is at least caching OpenStreetMap rather than just free riding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
Expansion of choice is always good so hopefully users get to choose. However I hope Apple is at least caching OpenStreetMap rather than just free riding.
More like you hope they are NOT using openstreetmap. To this day they still misplell the name of my street.
I live in barcant ave, not barcan ave, as openstreetmap insists. Bing and Google have it spot on though.
That's in trinidad by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
IIci??!
I had a IIci for my business and it was one of the best computers I've ever used. Very easy to upgrade, fast and highly dependable. One of Apple's most successful computers.
I think you got your model numbers mixed up.
IIsi maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Really? I hated everything they released after the IIfx until the 9500. All those si ci xi were mediocre at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
IIci??!
I had a IIci for my business and it was one of the best computers I've ever used. Very easy to upgrade, fast and highly dependable. One of Apple's most successful computers.
I think you got your model numbers mixed up.
IIsi maybe.
FYI:
First, I would hardly call the Iici one of the modern era iMacs. Came from the genealogy of the Mac II and IIcx (the only outward diff between the IIci and the IIcx was the ports and the user was offered a faster clock for the CPU. The IIci had a direct slot that was designed to support a cache to up its performance. Apple re-engineered the Iicx so that it was exactly the same as the IIci and went thru all the testing done but decided to not introduce the newer IIcx which would have been about $75 in parts cost alone because the press at the time was saying that Apple was introducing computers and then killing them months later (would have been about 8 mod since first IIcx went out). The code name at release were Atlantic and Pacific but alas Pacific was the only one to live past testing. I also allowed Apple to continue to charge about a grand more of the Ilci than the Ilcx and differentiated the two with the available cache which as I remember was about $250 and gave you about an 8-12% bump in speed in the synthetic benchmarks. It also would haven only taken days for someone to hack a IIcx to figure out replacing a single clock chip gave them a IIci (<$1.00 part and some simple soldering to save a grand -- think people would have been pissed much to find that out). (BTW: I was at Apple at the time -- just a few months before the '89 California World Series aka the 7.2 Loma Prieta quake).
The IIci was one of the most cost effective and popular machines available and sold at a great clip even after the Mac IIfx was released since at the time RAM was very expensive and few needed the 3 extra NuBus slots and heftier power supply that came as part of the Mac IIfx although it was 'Wicked Fast' it had a price tag to match. Those of us that were developers or those doing photoshop type work and could also afford to max out the RAM were probably the primary consumers of the Mac IIfx.
University's loved the IIci for its balance of power, cost, and footprint -- even if it did cost upwards of $3500 with a video card and no monitor. I loved using them in a bind, supporting them and installing them both at the University and on our research vessel where space was was a premium.
A good Mac for sure but not an iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
IIci??!
I had a IIci for my business and it was one of the best computers I've ever used. Very easy to upgrade, fast and highly dependable. One of Apple's most successful computers.
I think you got your model numbers mixed up.
IIsi maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Sorry I was thinking of the lc
Yuck! The performa were all different and there were so many different models numbers you could not compare any of them (but that was the point I guess). Its kind of like buying a mattress here in the US. You can go to a big name store at the mall or a furniture store and although they all have models that are very similar if you compare the specs the manufacturers change the names for the sellers so it is difficult to compare them and guarantees that no one can get the on the 'we will beat any other store with a lower price on the same model".
Then of course there was the follow on LC, LCii, and LCiii. Not to hard to tell why customers were confused about the product line in those days (thats without getting into the clone wars a bit latter).
The iPhone map app is very old. The google maps on the Android is just way better. I for one, can't wait for the iPhone map update.
What do you mean by that? There are two distinct aspects to Maps on the iPhone. There is the app itself and there is Google backend that it pulls its data. Do you mean the app is "very old" or do you mean the data from Google is "very old?" Can you explain either case as compared to Android and what version of Android you are referring if the former?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
Apple today announced that it is launching it's own satellite to map the world. It will be called iEye. LOL.
Maybe Apple is buying that second Spy Satalite that the National Reconnaissance Office gave NASA last year
http://za.omg.yahoo.com/news/u-spy-satellite-agency-gives-nasa-2-space-194916205.html
They wonder why the the NRC need such high power telescope, is so they and watch you pick your nose on your back porch.
Apple has the money to put these in space and map the earth and make some really cool high res images of your home.
Most (or should I say all) of the posters here are missing one important factor.
Apple might not have Maps as good as what Google has - it might not have StreetView coverage for as many cities worldwide as Google has - but that is besides the point. The point is, can Apple provide a solution that is many times better than the current Maps application on the iPhone? The answer to that is a resounding YES.
Maps on the iPhone is pathetic. There are no turn by turn directions. There is no Street View. There is no traffic capability. There is very basic functionality to do Geotagging, etc - you can at best bookmark locations on your device - cannot make your locations publicly available. Even simple functionality like getting GPS coordinates of any location is ridiculously complex in the current Maps app.
This is the low hurdle that Apple needs to cross - so obviously it is guaranteed that Apple will cross that hurdle easily. As for the Maps data itself, Open Street Map is for the most part a money issue, not a technology issue. With the support of Apple, it is very likely that OSM can improve the quality and accuracy of the maps tremendously.
Google is trying to steal Apple's thunder by announcing 3D Maps on June 6th - but really this does not matter. Apple is in a no loss situation here - whatever they come up with will be better than the current Maps app.
The only way for Google to steal Apple's thunder would be to launch a full blown version of Maps for iOS - with all the features that Android has. If Google does that, Apple's launch will be muted - because no one would want a version from Apple that has lesser features and lesser accuracy than the Google version. But even if this happens, it is a win-win for Apple's customers - and therefore for Apple itself!
2) I've hear that their C3 mapping system can mimic what Street View does but I can't see it. Can someone explain how?
3) Possibility that Apple has had unmarked vehicles doing their own Street View mapping for a couple years now?
Google maps not only have street view, but it also provides driving, transit and biking routes on their maps. Very nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro
Please re-read the entire thread. You risk posting more absurd comments.
? ? ? ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
Most (or should I say all) of the posters here are missing one important factor.
Apple might not have Maps as good as what Google has - it might not have StreetView coverage for as many cities worldwide as Google has - but that is besides the point. The point is, can Apple provide a solution that is many times better than the current Maps application on the iPhone? The answer to that is a resounding YES.
Maps on the iPhone is pathetic. There are no turn by turn directions. There is no Street View. There is no traffic capability. There is very basic functionality to do Geotagging, etc - you can at best bookmark locations on your device - cannot make your locations publicly available. Even simple functionality like getting GPS coordinates of any location is ridiculously complex in the current Maps app.
This is the low hurdle that Apple needs to cross - so obviously it is guaranteed that Apple will cross that hurdle easily. As for the Maps data itself, Open Street Map is for the most part a money issue, not a technology issue. With the support of Apple, it is very likely that OSM can improve the quality and accuracy of the maps tremendously.
Google is trying to steal Apple's thunder by announcing 3D Maps on June 6th - but really this does not matter. Apple is in a no loss situation here - whatever they come up with will be better than the current Maps app.
The only way for Google to steal Apple's thunder would be to launch a full blown version of Maps for iOS - with all the features that Android has. If Google does that, Apple's launch will be muted - because no one would want a version from Apple that has lesser features and lesser accuracy than the Google version. But even if this happens, it is a win-win for Apple's customers - and therefore for Apple itself!
"Maps simply needs to be "good enough" although the solution will far surpass that standard." - MacBook Pro
In all seriousness, have you ever used an iPhone?
Maps does have turn-by-turn directions, are you referring to dynamic routing (which the Apple iPhone does not have)
Maps does have Street View, in fact, the implementation is so elegant I expect the user interface to remain substantially the same
Maps does provide traffic information which appears to be exactly the same data as Google Maps on Android-based smartphones
Maps can share your location via email, SMS/MMS or Tweet for those who want to broadcast or narrowcast their location to friends or family that capability is provided in the "Find Friends" app
I do agree that the bar is set fairly low though. Maps doesn't need to compete with Google Maps on Android, any new version of Maps need only compete with the current version of Maps.