I always found the maps on the iPhone fun to mess around with for 5 minutes but I always fallback to the co-pilot satnav app which always gets me to my destination without a hitch.
Google may have more POI's but when their POI's are in the wrong place they become pointless. For example, the Apple Maps have the correct location for our local CEF but google has it 3 doors down from me on my street? wtf.
It's 100 times faster because it has 1000 times less stuff in it's database. If it will be a juggernaut in a year to 18 months then why not wait till it's finished to release it instead of releasing it half-baked.
So you would have been happy with no Maps at all, right?
Because there was no way that Apple was going to sign another contract with Google for anything, including maps. Period.
The reasons why doesn't matter, considering we don't know the details of what Google was asking for in the new contract, and I doubt we ever will... other than...possibly, Apple is going to go thermonuclear on Google next.
Before the media was centered on poo-pooing the new iPhone 5 and iOS6, there were a few articles around the net that were suggesting that very scenario.
1) Considering that: you need(ed) to have a cellular internet connection to use Google Maps, how would you ever use it for turn-by-turn navigation? What about so-called "black holes" where no reception is possible? That's why I use a real navigation app here in Germany (GPS Navigation 2 - inexpensive at only €7,00)
2) So now that an internet connection is necessary to use either Apple's or Google's maps: which one uses more of your data volume set by your carrier?
3) Could Apple at some point in time offer Maps to be downloaded to be used without an internet connection? As someone else mentioned, could they integrate Maps and location services in Mac OSX or create a maps app for that on Macs? Biggest question: would they have ever been able to do that using Google's maps?
I will not be surprised in the least if Apple has bigger plans for maps than most people can imagine.
Several reasons, really. I'm an Apple customer, not a Google customer, so Google is not required to serve me (just like Apple is not required to serve FaceTime or iMessage on other platforms and chooses not do tho so); I couldn't care less about who provides the Maps app with data, so long as the quality of service is maintained (it wasn't, in this case); and Google didn't stop offering the service (as evidenced by the fact that I can still make use of it on iOS 5.1.1).
Your right if you mean that Google didn't create the excellent maps app (Apple did) and that Google isn't required to make a native app for iOS.
But your mistaken about not being a Google customer, because you did use Googles data and map layout and you probably use Googles search also.
Probably Apple did pay Google for its maps data so in this way its part of the product and you are even a paying Google customer.
If Google didn't allow search on iOS you can search via Yahoo (etc) but your experience would be degraded seriously, but in your case thats ok, because your not a Google customer?
But your mistaken about not being a Google customer, because you did use Googles data and map layout and you probably use Googles search also.
That doesn't make me a customer. At most it makes Apple a customer. My use of the search service doesn't make me a customer either, quite the opposite, it makes me an asset.to the real customers (the advertisers).
Probably Apple did pay Google for its maps data so in this way its part of the product and you are even a paying Google customer.
If Google didn't allow search on iOS you can search via Yahoo (etc) but your experience would be degraded seriously, but in your case thats ok, because your not a Google customer?
J.
Who Apple subcontracts to get the job done is not my concern because it's not my choice.
Google are reportedly working on a separate app to be submitted to the app store. It should be interesting to watch Apple's reaction to this.
That hasn't been confirmed. If they were, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, trying to make the reaction to Apple's Maps even worse. They haven't been.
That hasn't been confirmed. If they were, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, trying to make the reaction to Apple's Maps even worse. They haven't been.
I did say "reportedly", not "confirmed". I rather doubt that Google would be "shouting it from the rooftops" if it were not ready to go. If and when Google submit the app for approval, it will be interesting to see what stance Apple take.
It's 100 times faster because it has 1000 times less stuff in it's database. If it will be a juggernaut in a year to 18 months then why not wait till it's finished to release it instead of releasing it half-baked.
Are you that thick? What part of 'a mapping app can't be fully incubated in a lab and needs to be released to really get better' don't you understand? It can never be released "fully baked". My God, can't believe the concept is so difficult for some of you to grasp, and shows how little you understand about whats involved in mapping and the complexities. Google maps was complete garbage when it first came out, a thousands times worse than Apple maps. Do you honestly think that if Google kept maps in the lab and released it today, without the feedback of hundreds of millions of users from the past 10 years, we would be looking at anywhere NEAR the same product? Obviously not.
It was absolutely the right thing for Apple to do what it did, otherwise it would have been completely handcuffed in maps without the ability to significantly improve the app, and being dictated to by Google, its biggest competitor. I don't understand how people like you don't understand the magnitude of a problem like that.
Perhaps you live an area where Apple’s data is OK. In my area (Moscow) it is so poor that it is unusable. There are no building outlines and numbers at all. Many points of interest are in the wrong places. Some subway stations are missing. It’s a disaster.
Don’t get me wrong, I am as excited as you are about Apple re-inventing mapping. And I love the app — real-time text-on-a-path layout, fonts, colors, beautiful placemark icons — lots of tiny details that are just right. But I can’t use it since the data in my area is junk.
What’s especially troubling is that high-quality data is actually available from third parties. It’s just that Apple has chosen not to buy it. For many locations in the world they have instead purchased some strange low-quality datasets with extremely bizarre errors (like streets named “abc”). It’s almost like they had no choice but to push it out now.
Perhaps you live an area where Apple%u2019s data is OK. In my area (Moscow) it is so poor that it is unusable. There are no building outlines and numbers at all. Many points of interest are in the wrong places. Some subway stations are missing. It%u2019s a disaster.
Don%u2019t get me wrong, I am as excited as you are about Apple re-inventing mapping. And I love the app %u2014 real-time text-on-a-path layout, fonts, colors, beautiful placemark icons %u2014 lots of tiny details that are just right. But I can%u2019t use it since the data in my area is junk.
What%u2019s especially troubling is that high-quality data is actually available from third parties. It%u2019s just that Apple has chosen not to buy it. For many locations in the world they have instead purchased some strange low-quality datasets with extremely bizarre errors (like streets named %u201Cabc%u201D). It%u2019s almost like they had no choice but to push it out now.
… From where did you post that apostrophes aren't correct?
… From where did you post that apostrophes aren't correct?
I’ve posted from the “Add Your Comment” text field at the bottom of the article page (new design). I’ve also noticed that comments do not appear immediately when posting from there—looks like the page cache is not being refreshed.
Comments
Google may have more POI's but when their POI's are in the wrong place they become pointless. For example, the Apple Maps have the correct location for our local CEF but google has it 3 doors down from me on my street? wtf.
So you would have been happy with no Maps at all, right?
Because there was no way that Apple was going to sign another contract with Google for anything, including maps. Period.
The reasons why doesn't matter, considering we don't know the details of what Google was asking for in the new contract, and I doubt we ever will... other than...possibly, Apple is going to go thermonuclear on Google next.
Before the media was centered on poo-pooing the new iPhone 5 and iOS6, there were a few articles around the net that were suggesting that very scenario.
1) Considering that: you need(ed) to have a cellular internet connection to use Google Maps, how would you ever use it for turn-by-turn navigation? What about so-called "black holes" where no reception is possible? That's why I use a real navigation app here in Germany (GPS Navigation 2 - inexpensive at only €7,00)
2) So now that an internet connection is necessary to use either Apple's or Google's maps: which one uses more of your data volume set by your carrier?
3) Could Apple at some point in time offer Maps to be downloaded to be used without an internet connection? As someone else mentioned, could they integrate Maps and location services in Mac OSX or create a maps app for that on Macs? Biggest question: would they have ever been able to do that using Google's maps?
I will not be surprised in the least if Apple has bigger plans for maps than most people can imagine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Several reasons, really. I'm an Apple customer, not a Google customer, so Google is not required to serve me (just like Apple is not required to serve FaceTime or iMessage on other platforms and chooses not do tho so); I couldn't care less about who provides the Maps app with data, so long as the quality of service is maintained (it wasn't, in this case); and Google didn't stop offering the service (as evidenced by the fact that I can still make use of it on iOS 5.1.1).
Your right if you mean that Google didn't create the excellent maps app (Apple did) and that Google isn't required to make a native app for iOS.
But your mistaken about not being a Google customer, because you did use Googles data and map layout and you probably use Googles search also.
Probably Apple did pay Google for its maps data so in this way its part of the product and you are even a paying Google customer.
If Google didn't allow search on iOS you can search via Yahoo (etc) but your experience would be degraded seriously, but in your case thats ok, because your not a Google customer?
J.
That doesn't make me a customer. At most it makes Apple a customer. My use of the search service doesn't make me a customer either, quite the opposite, it makes me an asset.to the real customers (the advertisers).
Who Apple subcontracts to get the job done is not my concern because it's not my choice.
Google are reportedly working on a separate app to be submitted to the app store. It should be interesting to watch Apple's reaction to this.
Originally Posted by RBR
Google are reportedly working on a separate app to be submitted to the app store. It should be interesting to watch Apple's reaction to this.
That hasn't been confirmed. If they were, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, trying to make the reaction to Apple's Maps even worse. They haven't been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That hasn't been confirmed. If they were, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, trying to make the reaction to Apple's Maps even worse. They haven't been.
I did say "reportedly", not "confirmed". I rather doubt that Google would be "shouting it from the rooftops" if it were not ready to go. If and when Google submit the app for approval, it will be interesting to see what stance Apple take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by colleljj
It's 100 times faster because it has 1000 times less stuff in it's database. If it will be a juggernaut in a year to 18 months then why not wait till it's finished to release it instead of releasing it half-baked.
Are you that thick? What part of 'a mapping app can't be fully incubated in a lab and needs to be released to really get better' don't you understand? It can never be released "fully baked". My God, can't believe the concept is so difficult for some of you to grasp, and shows how little you understand about whats involved in mapping and the complexities. Google maps was complete garbage when it first came out, a thousands times worse than Apple maps. Do you honestly think that if Google kept maps in the lab and released it today, without the feedback of hundreds of millions of users from the past 10 years, we would be looking at anywhere NEAR the same product? Obviously not.
It was absolutely the right thing for Apple to do what it did, otherwise it would have been completely handcuffed in maps without the ability to significantly improve the app, and being dictated to by Google, its biggest competitor. I don't understand how people like you don't understand the magnitude of a problem like that.
Perhaps you live an area where Apple’s data is OK. In my area (Moscow) it is so poor that it is unusable. There are no building outlines and numbers at all. Many points of interest are in the wrong places. Some subway stations are missing. It’s a disaster.
Don’t get me wrong, I am as excited as you are about Apple re-inventing mapping. And I love the app — real-time text-on-a-path layout, fonts, colors, beautiful placemark icons — lots of tiny details that are just right. But I can’t use it since the data in my area is junk.
What’s especially troubling is that high-quality data is actually available from third parties. It’s just that Apple has chosen not to buy it. For many locations in the world they have instead purchased some strange low-quality datasets with extremely bizarre errors (like streets named “abc”). It’s almost like they had no choice but to push it out now.
Originally Posted by yakovlev
@slurpy
Perhaps you live an area where Apple%u2019s data is OK. In my area (Moscow) it is so poor that it is unusable. There are no building outlines and numbers at all. Many points of interest are in the wrong places. Some subway stations are missing. It%u2019s a disaster.
Don%u2019t get me wrong, I am as excited as you are about Apple re-inventing mapping. And I love the app %u2014 real-time text-on-a-path layout, fonts, colors, beautiful placemark icons %u2014 lots of tiny details that are just right. But I can%u2019t use it since the data in my area is junk.
What%u2019s especially troubling is that high-quality data is actually available from third parties. It%u2019s just that Apple has chosen not to buy it. For many locations in the world they have instead purchased some strange low-quality datasets with extremely bizarre errors (like streets named %u201Cabc%u201D). It%u2019s almost like they had no choice but to push it out now.
… From where did you post that apostrophes aren't correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
… From where did you post that apostrophes aren't correct?
I’ve posted from the “Add Your Comment” text field at the bottom of the article page (new design). I’ve also noticed that comments do not appear immediately when posting from there—looks like the page cache is not being refreshed.
Originally Posted by yakovlev
I’ve posted from the “Add Your Comment” text field at the bottom of the article page (new design).
Thanks for that; I'll pass it along.