Anyway as Tomtom has been quick to point out (once the complaints started), while they stand behind the quality of the map data they've sold to Apple, it's Apple's job to figure out how to properly use it as they didn't buy any support or development to go along with it.
So Apple went in to the data base and renamed towns, streets and landmarks, put dining and shopping icons on stores that no longer exist? Why would Apple do that? Not saying that Apple hasn't made many errors in execution of the new maps but the data is supposed to be correct to begin with.
So Apple went in to the data base and renamed towns, streets and landmarks, put dining and shopping icons on stores that no longer exist? Why would Apple do that? Not saying that Apple hasn't made many errors in execution of the new maps but the data is supposed to be correct to begin with.
The underlying data could be generally, even perfectly, correct yet still misapplied or improperly translated once Apple's team combined it with other elements from separate sources.
I've no idea how Apple went about assembling their maps, the expertise of their mapping team, nor the source and extent of the underlying data they've used for various specific map segments. They've integrated more than a dozen sources for various features and functions and combined them into a single application. It's obvious that some mapping. POI's or other information hasn't been properly applied somewhere in the process. The source of those errors isn't being owned up to by anyone as far as I've seen, tho in the end it's Apple's problem to solve. I simply repeated what Tomtom had to say about it.
@Anonymouse and Tallest Skil - just wow. You just picked out the part where I criticize Apple and throw everything else out as garbage.... so is that supposed to mean that Apple can do no wrong or that if you buy their product you can't criticize them. What kind of fantasy world do you live in.... or are you guys actually paid trolls yourselves?
@Anonymouse and Tallest Skil - just wow. You just picked out the part where I criticize Apple and throw everything else out as garbage.... so is that supposed to mean that Apple can do no wrong or that if you buy their product you can't criticize them. What kind of fantasy world do you live in.... or are you guys actually paid trolls yourselves? That said... I do hope you get paid for this, otherwise that would mean you're quite pathetic.
Actually, I picked out your entire post as garbage, just so we're clear on that.
Anyway as Tomtom has been quick to point out (once the complaints started), while they stand behind the quality of the map data they've sold to Apple, it's Apple's job to figure out how to properly use it as they didn't buy any support or development to go along with it.
So Apple went in to the data base and renamed towns, streets and landmarks, put dining and shopping icons on stores that no longer exist? Why would Apple do that? Not saying that Apple hasn't made many errors in execution of the new maps but the data is supposed to be correct to begin with.
I've been doing some checking...
Apparently TomTom has a proprietary database format that they don't reveal -- even to licensees like Apple.
iOS 6 Maps uses OSM (Open Street Maps) format.
Apparently, the conversion between TomTom and and OSM is not an exact science.
Now, here is a case where you may be proven right... If Apple saved some money by not buying any development or support from TomTom.
Knowing Apple, though, I bet it was more of an ego thing than doing it on the cheap -- the money savings was just a bonus!
The Apple I've known for 34 years thinks that:
anything can be done in software
hardware is just a means to showcase the software
they are better at software than anyone else *
So, I can envision someone like Scott Forestall and/or his minions saying "Support? Support? We don't need no stinkin' support!".
* They seem to be right more than 80% of the time
The story goes that Apple was considering buying Commodore for the superior (at the time) Amiga hardware. Steve, Bill Atkinson and a few others were given a run-through by Commodore... Atkinson was heard to remark "We can do that in software"...
Edit: There are some database formats out there based on XML. I wouldn't be surprised if TomTom or OSM (or both) have an XML database... or XML is used in the conversion process.
XML has several weaknesses! One of the worst is that you can slap together something quickly without really considering overall design, additional future capabilities, etc. What happens, over time, is you get a can of worms -- where you are afraid to change anything... you just add a new substructure. Misnamed and misplaced items could easily occur if you don't understand the intricacies of a complex XML structure.
Edit 2: The more I think about it, I can almost visualize what is happening:
An iOS 6 device makes a map request to Apple's Cloud servers
Apple's Cloud servers make a request to TomTom's Map servers (locally or remotely)
TomTom returns XML containing the requested map data
Apple's servers parse the XML and combine it with OSM Data
Apple's servers format the results for efficient transmission to the iOS 6 device
The iOS 6 Maps app generates the map
Steps 3 & 4, likely are the problem areas... I'm surmising that the XML packet contains some oddball data (like a revised name or location that should replace the prior data (in the same XML packet). Apple doesn't know how to handle this -- so it just ignores it and sends the original (erroneous) data back to the iOS 6 Maps app... Where it is presented in all its glory
What kind of fantasy world do you live in.... or are you guys actually paid trolls yourselves?
We live in the fantasy world where people stay on topic, do research before whining about something they don't understand, and don't have to pretend to put up a defensive barrier of "ownership" or "fanhood" to hide their trolling.
Apparently TomTom has a proprietary database format that they don't reveal -- even to licensees like Apple.
iOS 6 Maps uses OSM (Open Street Maps) format.
Apparently, the conversion between TomTom and and OSM is not an exact science.
Now, here is a case where you may be proven right... If Apple saved some money by not buying any development or support from TomTom.
Knowing Apple, though, I bet it was more of an ego thing than doing it on the cheap -- the money savings was just a bonus!
The Apple I've known for 34 years thinks that:
anything can be done in software
hardware is just a means to showcase the software
they are better at software than anyone else *
[...]
Edit: There are some database formats out there based on XML. I wouldn't be surprised if TomTom or OSM (or both) have an XML database... or XML is used in the conversion process.
XML has several weaknesses! One of the worst is that you can slap together something quickly without really considering overall design, additional future capabilities, etc. What happens, over time, is you get a can of worms -- where you are afraid to change anything... you just add a new substructure. Misnamed and misplaced items could easily occur if you don't understand the intricacies of a complex XML structure.
First law of enterprise level database design is abstraction layer from the very beginning. If they bought a database without abstraction in an unknown table structure then they deserve every criticism they are receiving.
Apple maps V1 was never going to compete with Google maps V7 as Google have had 8 years head start but I bet it doesn't take Apple more than a year to catch up.
Agreed.
However, Apple has more money than God (yes this is hyperbole not an attempt to state facts), so they only throw money at the problem AFTER they release the software as their key app promoting iOS 6?
I find it hard to believe Apple didn't know the inadequacies of the software before the launch. Why didn't they throw this money at the problem a year ago when they decided to compete with Google? Why is it still promoted as possibly "the most beautiful, Powerful mapping service ever"?
In the meantime, I will use maps.google.com, and/or look for another app while Apple gets their act together, but considering what was hinged on his launch, this was a huge misstep for Apple. Sorry, that's how I see it. Perhaps in a year Apple will have worked out the bugs enough to make the claim it is the most "powerful" maps app ever, but for now Google, Samsung, Microsoft and the rest are having a good laugh ... And a lot of consumers are re-considering their iPhone purchase.
And that is the REAL PROBLEM, not whether users can find suitable workarounds, but that Android and Microsoft now have some ammunition to get a stronger foothold for their deficient platforms. Look, consumers by and large are rarely loyal. They want cheap, feature rich products that do whatever they need done well (why else would Apple try to compete with other platforms on price considering they offer a superior product?) Map software is probably the most utilized and relied upon app on any phone, after the basic commnication apps, and if that doesn't work correctly for them, then what good are all the other bells and whistles? Hopefully I am wrong ...
Great news?!! Are you insane? Why wasn't this done years ago? For what we're paying, we're getting an incomplete product. Jobs would never have let this happen. This is pure unadulterated bs.
It's called sarcasm. Look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Agreed.
However, Apple has more money than God (yes this is hyperbole not an attempt to state facts), so they only throw money at the problem AFTER they release the software as their key app promoting iOS 6?
I find it hard to believe Apple didn't know the inadequacies of the software before the launch. Why didn't they throw this money at the problem a year ago when they decided to compete with Google? Why is it still promoted as possibly "the most beautiful, Powerful mapping service ever"?
In the meantime, I will use maps.google.com, and/or look for another app while Apple gets their act together, but considering what was hinged on his launch, this was a huge misstep for Apple. Sorry, that's how I see it. Perhaps in a year Apple will have worked out the bugs enough to make the claim it is the most "powerful" maps app ever, but for now Google, Samsung, Microsoft and the rest are having a good laugh ... And a lot of consumers are re-considering their iPhone purchase.
One does have to wonder how it could be such a nightmare. To be fair, it does seem much worse outside the U.S. Perhaps their international maps just didn't get that much attention. As I posted earlier, it actually works great for me. Faster, cleaner, crisper. Then again, I'm in suburban Philly. It seems like location is a big variable.
Apparently TomTom has a proprietary database format that they don't reveal -- even to licensees like Apple.
iOS 6 Maps uses OSM (Open Street Maps) format.
Apparently, the conversion between TomTom and and OSM is not an exact science.
Now, here is a case where you may be proven right... If Apple saved some money by not buying any development or support from TomTom.
Knowing Apple, though, I bet it was more of an ego thing than doing it on the cheap -- the money savings was just a bonus!
The Apple I've known for 34 years thinks that:
anything can be done in software
hardware is just a means to showcase the software
they are better at software than anyone else *
[...]
Edit: There are some database formats out there based on XML. I wouldn't be surprised if TomTom or OSM (or both) have an XML database... or XML is used in the conversion process.
XML has several weaknesses! One of the worst is that you can slap together something quickly without really considering overall design, additional future capabilities, etc. What happens, over time, is you get a can of worms -- where you are afraid to change anything... you just add a new substructure. Misnamed and misplaced items could easily occur if you don't understand the intricacies of a complex XML structure.
First law of enterprise level database design is abstraction layer from the very beginning. If they bought a database without abstraction in an unknown table structure then they deserve every criticism they are receiving.
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
Quote:
Edit 2: The more I think about it, I can almost visualize what is happening:
An iOS 6 device makes a map request to Apple's Cloud servers
Apple's Cloud servers make a request to TomTom's Map servers (locally or remotely)
TomTom returns XML containing the requested map data
Apple's servers parse the XML and combine it with OSM Data
Apple's servers format the results for efficient transmission to the iOS 6 device
The iOS 6 Maps app generates the map
Steps 3 & 4, likely are the problem areas... I'm surmising that the XML packet contains some oddball data (like a revised name or location that should replace the prior data (in the same XML packet). Apple doesn't know how to handle this -- so it just ignores it and sends the original (erroneous) data back to the iOS 6 Maps app... Where it is presented in all its glory
I haven't checked in a while but iTunes is/was based on an XML database -- when you did a query of the iTunes Store, XML was retrieved from the database, compressed and encrypted and sent to the iTunes app on your computer, It was all terribly inefficient -- maybe that's why they are rewriting iTunes.
Back on topic: A service like iTunes and (to a lesser degree) Maps is mostly forgiving -- if the client app does't understand the data (the XML doesn't parse) it can just be ignored -- the client app will just present what it can and//or make another request.
I don't use turn-by-turn, but quite a few posters say that they have no problems with it. This may be because the data comes from a different source or the structure and process is more rigorous than simply displaying names and places on a map.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject FWIW!
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
I haven't checked in a while but iTunes is/was based on an XML database -- when you did a query of the iTunes Store, XML was retrieved from the database, compressed and encrypted and sent to the iTunes app on your computer, It was all terribly inefficient -- maybe that's why they are rewriting iTunes.
Back on topic: A service like iTunes and (to a lesser degree) Maps is mostly forgiving -- if the client app does't understand the data (the XML doesn't parse) it can just be ignored -- the client app will just present what it can and//or make another request.
I don't use turn-by-turn, but quite a few posters say that they have no problems with it. This may be because the data comes from a different source or the structure and process is more rigorous than simply displaying names and places on a map.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject FWIW!
I would doubt that Apple's servers are querying TT servers when an iOS user asks for mapping or routing. TomTom back-end servers haven't been all that reliable with frequent outages and connection failures, even rarely for a day or more. I'd be shocked if Apple relied on them directly and on-demand for any customer feature support.
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
That really makes me wonder. They ditched dependency on Google only to be dependent on TomTom seems to point to the switch as to deprive Google of revenue and not so much about creating their own application. The reason Google maps are so good is because Google controls all the data. If Apple has to get data from multiple vendors in various formats and then continually convert it, how can they possibly catch up to Google. I would have thought they would buy the initial data and then take responsibility for maintaining and updating it so they were in complete control. I can see licensing imagery but I would think owning your data should be a high priority.
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
That really makes me wonder. They ditched dependency on Google only to be dependent on TomTom seems to point to the switch as to deprive Google of revenue and not so much about creating their own application. The reason Google maps are so good is because Google controls all the data. If Apple has to get data from multiple vendors in various formats and then continually convert it, how can they possibly catch up to Google. I would have thought they would buy the initial data and then take responsibility for maintaining and updating it so they were in complete control. I can see licensing imagery but I would think owning your data should be a high priority.
Yeah, but TomTom is not a competitor to Apple (Apple is a competitor to TomTom). So, I think that Tim and company are tired of underwriting competitors.
But, I agree -- if Apple wants to be in the map business they should own the data and the means of gathering and updating it. Maybe Apple should have just bought TomTom if they were the best non-competitive mapper out there!
I've received Mike Dobson's articles for a few years now and always find him to have some good information and background data on the map-making industry as a whole, along with it's history. I was mildly surprised that mainstream press took notice today. Cartography is a area of little interest to most people.
Well, as opposed to just bashing people back and forth, I'm going to give my opinion instead.
I'm both disappointed with elements of the new maps, but cautiously optimistic that it will end up being a huge step forwards. The bad comes down to two things, firstly, not having transit times is a huge step backwards from Google Maps. I know Apple say 3rd party developers will come and fix that, but having downloaded a couple of the apps they recommend when I tried a transit search, it's just not the same as having it in the same app. I suspect Apple will end up re-thinking that one, and putting transit times in themselves.
The second bad thing I see is the traffic. On Google Maps it was nice and clear, Green, Amber or Red, but on Apples effort it is far from clear what's going on.
However, on the plus side, it's readability as a map is streets ahead of Google. I also like the fact that it's presenting whichever businesses are there as opposed to whichever nearby business has paid for prominence. I appreciate there are some problems with locations being wrong, but again, I think they'll fix that.
So, at the moment I'd say it's hard to call it anything other than a disappointment in its current form, I think it represents a big enough improvement as a platform for them to be able to make some rapid improvements, that will ultimately lead to it being better than Google Maps.
One of these days, I swear, Apple is going to put a gate in their phone, and it'll have issues, and the press will dub it "Gate-gate," because they're bereft of imagination.
The bad comes down to two things, firstly, not having transit times is a huge step backwards from Google Maps. I know Apple say 3rd party developers will come and fix that, but having downloaded a couple of the apps they recommend when I tried a transit search, it's just not the same as having it in the same app. I suspect Apple will end up re-thinking that one, and putting transit times in themselves.
I totally agree with you.
Problem I have with Transit is not the directions part. It's the lack of mapping out routes overlaid on the map. Primarily Subway lines and station plans. Google's plans are really great for traveling. I don't need the phone to tell me which line to take, if the plan of the subway system is overlaid on the map.
The other problem with 3rd party apps is they are generally specific to one city. So if you travel a lot (like I do) you have to have tones of apps (more then will fit in a folder) for all the different walking, biking, bus and subway apps you would need...none of which will work within the Maps App.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Anyway as Tomtom has been quick to point out (once the complaints started), while they stand behind the quality of the map data they've sold to Apple, it's Apple's job to figure out how to properly use it as they didn't buy any support or development to go along with it.
So Apple went in to the data base and renamed towns, streets and landmarks, put dining and shopping icons on stores that no longer exist? Why would Apple do that? Not saying that Apple hasn't made many errors in execution of the new maps but the data is supposed to be correct to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
So Apple went in to the data base and renamed towns, streets and landmarks, put dining and shopping icons on stores that no longer exist? Why would Apple do that? Not saying that Apple hasn't made many errors in execution of the new maps but the data is supposed to be correct to begin with.
The underlying data could be generally, even perfectly, correct yet still misapplied or improperly translated once Apple's team combined it with other elements from separate sources.
I've no idea how Apple went about assembling their maps, the expertise of their mapping team, nor the source and extent of the underlying data they've used for various specific map segments. They've integrated more than a dozen sources for various features and functions and combined them into a single application. It's obvious that some mapping. POI's or other information hasn't been properly applied somewhere in the process. The source of those errors isn't being owned up to by anyone as far as I've seen, tho in the end it's Apple's problem to solve. I simply repeated what Tomtom had to say about it.
http://www.reuters.com/www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/21/us-tomtom-apple-maps-idUSBRE88K0PT20120921
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/21/tomtom-apple-maps-idINL5E8KLHPX20120921
@Anonymouse and Tallest Skil - just wow. You just picked out the part where I criticize Apple and throw everything else out as garbage.... so is that supposed to mean that Apple can do no wrong or that if you buy their product you can't criticize them. What kind of fantasy world do you live in.... or are you guys actually paid trolls yourselves?
Quote:
Originally Posted by msalganik
@Anonymouse and Tallest Skil - just wow. You just picked out the part where I criticize Apple and throw everything else out as garbage.... so is that supposed to mean that Apple can do no wrong or that if you buy their product you can't criticize them. What kind of fantasy world do you live in.... or are you guys actually paid trolls yourselves? That said... I do hope you get paid for this, otherwise that would mean you're quite pathetic.
Actually, I picked out your entire post as garbage, just so we're clear on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Anyway as Tomtom has been quick to point out (once the complaints started), while they stand behind the quality of the map data they've sold to Apple, it's Apple's job to figure out how to properly use it as they didn't buy any support or development to go along with it.
So Apple went in to the data base and renamed towns, streets and landmarks, put dining and shopping icons on stores that no longer exist? Why would Apple do that? Not saying that Apple hasn't made many errors in execution of the new maps but the data is supposed to be correct to begin with.
I've been doing some checking...
Apparently TomTom has a proprietary database format that they don't reveal -- even to licensees like Apple.
iOS 6 Maps uses OSM (Open Street Maps) format.
Apparently, the conversion between TomTom and and OSM is not an exact science.
Now, here is a case where you may be proven right... If Apple saved some money by not buying any development or support from TomTom.
Knowing Apple, though, I bet it was more of an ego thing than doing it on the cheap -- the money savings was just a bonus!
The Apple I've known for 34 years thinks that:
anything can be done in software
hardware is just a means to showcase the software
they are better at software than anyone else *
So, I can envision someone like Scott Forestall and/or his minions saying "Support? Support? We don't need no stinkin' support!".
* They seem to be right more than 80% of the time
The story goes that Apple was considering buying Commodore for the superior (at the time) Amiga hardware. Steve, Bill Atkinson and a few others were given a run-through by Commodore... Atkinson was heard to remark "We can do that in software"...
Edit: There are some database formats out there based on XML. I wouldn't be surprised if TomTom or OSM (or both) have an XML database... or XML is used in the conversion process.
XML has several weaknesses! One of the worst is that you can slap together something quickly without really considering overall design, additional future capabilities, etc. What happens, over time, is you get a can of worms -- where you are afraid to change anything... you just add a new substructure. Misnamed and misplaced items could easily occur if you don't understand the intricacies of a complex XML structure.
Edit 2: The more I think about it, I can almost visualize what is happening:
An iOS 6 device makes a map request to Apple's Cloud servers
Apple's Cloud servers make a request to TomTom's Map servers (locally or remotely)
TomTom returns XML containing the requested map data
Apple's servers parse the XML and combine it with OSM Data
Apple's servers format the results for efficient transmission to the iOS 6 device
The iOS 6 Maps app generates the map
Steps 3 & 4, likely are the problem areas... I'm surmising that the XML packet contains some oddball data (like a revised name or location that should replace the prior data (in the same XML packet). Apple doesn't know how to handle this -- so it just ignores it and sends the original (erroneous) data back to the iOS 6 Maps app... Where it is presented in all its glory
Originally Posted by msalganik
What kind of fantasy world do you live in.... or are you guys actually paid trolls yourselves?
We live in the fantasy world where people stay on topic, do research before whining about something they don't understand, and don't have to pretend to put up a defensive barrier of "ownership" or "fanhood" to hide their trolling.
We like to call it Reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I've been doing some checking...
Apparently TomTom has a proprietary database format that they don't reveal -- even to licensees like Apple.
iOS 6 Maps uses OSM (Open Street Maps) format.
Apparently, the conversion between TomTom and and OSM is not an exact science.
Now, here is a case where you may be proven right... If Apple saved some money by not buying any development or support from TomTom.
Knowing Apple, though, I bet it was more of an ego thing than doing it on the cheap -- the money savings was just a bonus!
The Apple I've known for 34 years thinks that:
anything can be done in software
hardware is just a means to showcase the software
they are better at software than anyone else *
[...]
Edit: There are some database formats out there based on XML. I wouldn't be surprised if TomTom or OSM (or both) have an XML database... or XML is used in the conversion process.
XML has several weaknesses! One of the worst is that you can slap together something quickly without really considering overall design, additional future capabilities, etc. What happens, over time, is you get a can of worms -- where you are afraid to change anything... you just add a new substructure. Misnamed and misplaced items could easily occur if you don't understand the intricacies of a complex XML structure.
First law of enterprise level database design is abstraction layer from the very beginning. If they bought a database without abstraction in an unknown table structure then they deserve every criticism they are receiving.
However, Apple has more money than God (yes this is hyperbole not an attempt to state facts), so they only throw money at the problem AFTER they release the software as their key app promoting iOS 6?
http://www.apple.com/ios/whats-new/
I find it hard to believe Apple didn't know the inadequacies of the software before the launch. Why didn't they throw this money at the problem a year ago when they decided to compete with Google? Why is it still promoted as possibly "the most beautiful, Powerful mapping service ever"?
http://www.apple.com/ios/maps
In the meantime, I will use maps.google.com, and/or look for another app while Apple gets their act together, but considering what was hinged on his launch, this was a huge misstep for Apple. Sorry, that's how I see it. Perhaps in a year Apple will have worked out the bugs enough to make the claim it is the most "powerful" maps app ever, but for now Google, Samsung, Microsoft and the rest are having a good laugh ... And a lot of consumers are re-considering their iPhone purchase.
And that is the REAL PROBLEM, not whether users can find suitable workarounds, but that Android and Microsoft now have some ammunition to get a stronger foothold for their deficient platforms. Look, consumers by and large are rarely loyal. They want cheap, feature rich products that do whatever they need done well (why else would Apple try to compete with other platforms on price considering they offer a superior product?) Map software is probably the most utilized and relied upon app on any phone, after the basic commnication apps, and if that doesn't work correctly for them, then what good are all the other bells and whistles? Hopefully I am wrong ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by yu119995
Great news?!! Are you insane? Why wasn't this done years ago? For what we're paying, we're getting an incomplete product. Jobs would never have let this happen. This is pure unadulterated bs.
It's called sarcasm. Look it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Agreed.
However, Apple has more money than God (yes this is hyperbole not an attempt to state facts), so they only throw money at the problem AFTER they release the software as their key app promoting iOS 6?
http://www.apple.com/ios/whats-new/
I find it hard to believe Apple didn't know the inadequacies of the software before the launch. Why didn't they throw this money at the problem a year ago when they decided to compete with Google? Why is it still promoted as possibly "the most beautiful, Powerful mapping service ever"?
http://www.apple.com/ios/maps
In the meantime, I will use maps.google.com, and/or look for another app while Apple gets their act together, but considering what was hinged on his launch, this was a huge misstep for Apple. Sorry, that's how I see it. Perhaps in a year Apple will have worked out the bugs enough to make the claim it is the most "powerful" maps app ever, but for now Google, Samsung, Microsoft and the rest are having a good laugh ... And a lot of consumers are re-considering their iPhone purchase.
One does have to wonder how it could be such a nightmare. To be fair, it does seem much worse outside the U.S. Perhaps their international maps just didn't get that much attention. As I posted earlier, it actually works great for me. Faster, cleaner, crisper. Then again, I'm in suburban Philly. It seems like location is a big variable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I've been doing some checking...
Apparently TomTom has a proprietary database format that they don't reveal -- even to licensees like Apple.
iOS 6 Maps uses OSM (Open Street Maps) format.
Apparently, the conversion between TomTom and and OSM is not an exact science.
Now, here is a case where you may be proven right... If Apple saved some money by not buying any development or support from TomTom.
Knowing Apple, though, I bet it was more of an ego thing than doing it on the cheap -- the money savings was just a bonus!
The Apple I've known for 34 years thinks that:
anything can be done in software
hardware is just a means to showcase the software
they are better at software than anyone else *
[...]
Edit: There are some database formats out there based on XML. I wouldn't be surprised if TomTom or OSM (or both) have an XML database... or XML is used in the conversion process.
XML has several weaknesses! One of the worst is that you can slap together something quickly without really considering overall design, additional future capabilities, etc. What happens, over time, is you get a can of worms -- where you are afraid to change anything... you just add a new substructure. Misnamed and misplaced items could easily occur if you don't understand the intricacies of a complex XML structure.
First law of enterprise level database design is abstraction layer from the very beginning. If they bought a database without abstraction in an unknown table structure then they deserve every criticism they are receiving.
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
Quote:
Edit 2: The more I think about it, I can almost visualize what is happening:
An iOS 6 device makes a map request to Apple's Cloud servers
Apple's Cloud servers make a request to TomTom's Map servers (locally or remotely)
TomTom returns XML containing the requested map data
Apple's servers parse the XML and combine it with OSM Data
Apple's servers format the results for efficient transmission to the iOS 6 device
The iOS 6 Maps app generates the map
Steps 3 & 4, likely are the problem areas... I'm surmising that the XML packet contains some oddball data (like a revised name or location that should replace the prior data (in the same XML packet). Apple doesn't know how to handle this -- so it just ignores it and sends the original (erroneous) data back to the iOS 6 Maps app... Where it is presented in all its glory
I haven't checked in a while but iTunes is/was based on an XML database -- when you did a query of the iTunes Store, XML was retrieved from the database, compressed and encrypted and sent to the iTunes app on your computer, It was all terribly inefficient -- maybe that's why they are rewriting iTunes.
Back on topic: A service like iTunes and (to a lesser degree) Maps is mostly forgiving -- if the client app does't understand the data (the XML doesn't parse) it can just be ignored -- the client app will just present what it can and//or make another request.
I don't use turn-by-turn, but quite a few posters say that they have no problems with it. This may be because the data comes from a different source or the structure and process is more rigorous than simply displaying names and places on a map.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject FWIW!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
I haven't checked in a while but iTunes is/was based on an XML database -- when you did a query of the iTunes Store, XML was retrieved from the database, compressed and encrypted and sent to the iTunes app on your computer, It was all terribly inefficient -- maybe that's why they are rewriting iTunes.
Back on topic: A service like iTunes and (to a lesser degree) Maps is mostly forgiving -- if the client app does't understand the data (the XML doesn't parse) it can just be ignored -- the client app will just present what it can and//or make another request.
I don't use turn-by-turn, but quite a few posters say that they have no problems with it. This may be because the data comes from a different source or the structure and process is more rigorous than simply displaying names and places on a map.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject FWIW!
I would doubt that Apple's servers are querying TT servers when an iOS user asks for mapping or routing. TomTom back-end servers haven't been all that reliable with frequent outages and connection failures, even rarely for a day or more. I'd be shocked if Apple relied on them directly and on-demand for any customer feature support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
That really makes me wonder. They ditched dependency on Google only to be dependent on TomTom seems to point to the switch as to deprive Google of revenue and not so much about creating their own application. The reason Google maps are so good is because Google controls all the data. If Apple has to get data from multiple vendors in various formats and then continually convert it, how can they possibly catch up to Google. I would have thought they would buy the initial data and then take responsibility for maintaining and updating it so they were in complete control. I can see licensing imagery but I would think owning your data should be a high priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree... but they didn't buy a database they bought continuous access to a database! I suspect that XML is used for the abstraction layer, and therein lies the problem. I added some edits to the post and I'll repeat them here:
That really makes me wonder. They ditched dependency on Google only to be dependent on TomTom seems to point to the switch as to deprive Google of revenue and not so much about creating their own application. The reason Google maps are so good is because Google controls all the data. If Apple has to get data from multiple vendors in various formats and then continually convert it, how can they possibly catch up to Google. I would have thought they would buy the initial data and then take responsibility for maintaining and updating it so they were in complete control. I can see licensing imagery but I would think owning your data should be a high priority.
Yeah, but TomTom is not a competitor to Apple (Apple is a competitor to TomTom). So, I think that Tim and company are tired of underwriting competitors.
But, I agree -- if Apple wants to be in the map business they should own the data and the means of gathering and updating it. Maybe Apple should have just bought TomTom if they were the best non-competitive mapper out there!
Here's an interesting read:
Expert in cartography explains the issues with Apple’s Maps
http://9to5m?c.com/2012/09/21/expert-cartography-ph-d-explains-the-issues-with-apples-maps/
Dick, I fixed your link by making that "a" into a Cyrillic… whatever they call it.
The link doesn't actually work still. The forum prevents all use of "9to5M?c". Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Here's an interesting read:
Expert in cartography explains the issues with Apple’s Maps
http://************/2012/09/21/expert-cartography-ph-d-explains-the-issues-with-apples-maps/
I've received Mike Dobson's articles for a few years now and always find him to have some good information and background data on the map-making industry as a whole, along with it's history. I was mildly surprised that mainstream press took notice today. Cartography is a area of little interest to most people.
Well, as opposed to just bashing people back and forth, I'm going to give my opinion instead.
I'm both disappointed with elements of the new maps, but cautiously optimistic that it will end up being a huge step forwards. The bad comes down to two things, firstly, not having transit times is a huge step backwards from Google Maps. I know Apple say 3rd party developers will come and fix that, but having downloaded a couple of the apps they recommend when I tried a transit search, it's just not the same as having it in the same app. I suspect Apple will end up re-thinking that one, and putting transit times in themselves.
The second bad thing I see is the traffic. On Google Maps it was nice and clear, Green, Amber or Red, but on Apples effort it is far from clear what's going on.
However, on the plus side, it's readability as a map is streets ahead of Google. I also like the fact that it's presenting whichever businesses are there as opposed to whichever nearby business has paid for prominence. I appreciate there are some problems with locations being wrong, but again, I think they'll fix that.
So, at the moment I'd say it's hard to call it anything other than a disappointment in its current form, I think it represents a big enough improvement as a platform for them to be able to make some rapid improvements, that will ultimately lead to it being better than Google Maps.
There's no better way to tell Apple they missed the mark than to not use it.
One of these days, I swear, Apple is going to put a gate in their phone, and it'll have issues, and the press will dub it "Gate-gate," because they're bereft of imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
The bad comes down to two things, firstly, not having transit times is a huge step backwards from Google Maps. I know Apple say 3rd party developers will come and fix that, but having downloaded a couple of the apps they recommend when I tried a transit search, it's just not the same as having it in the same app. I suspect Apple will end up re-thinking that one, and putting transit times in themselves.
I totally agree with you.
Problem I have with Transit is not the directions part. It's the lack of mapping out routes overlaid on the map. Primarily Subway lines and station plans. Google's plans are really great for traveling. I don't need the phone to tell me which line to take, if the plan of the subway system is overlaid on the map.
The other problem with 3rd party apps is they are generally specific to one city. So if you travel a lot (like I do) you have to have tones of apps (more then will fit in a folder) for all the different walking, biking, bus and subway apps you would need...none of which will work within the Maps App.
iFail