The ironic thing is that Google's own Street View even shows that "address" isn't an address at all:
And once again, why does an "address" have to have a building on it? As long as there is a USPS authorized mail receptacle, they will deliver mail to an empty lot. How do I know this? Because I once built a house on a virgin lot, and a mailbox was put up before anything else and guess, what, the USPS delivered mail to an empty lot.
315 E 15th Street is as valid an address for Stuyvesant Square as any other contained in that particular block. Just because the USPS won't deliver to it, doesn't invalidate it as an address to the city, county, state and federal government. The NYC parks department even indicates that the park encompasses a series of addresses with specified boundaries on its website, since the park itself does not officially have an address.
As I pointed out before, Apple Maps actually gives the park an address -- 297 2nd Ave, an address which the USPS also says is NOT a real address, not to mention that the NYC parks does not acknowledge a specific address. So Apple is telling me incorrect information, and giving me a fake address that nobody would ever go looking for.
Honestly I don't understand why you continue to make this issue out of the address being real simply because it is not aknowledged by the USPS. It's a real address to the City of NY, so it's real. Everywhere somebody wants to go doesn't have to be an address that accepts mail. Yes Google picked a bad example, yes very few people would actually ever look for that address, and using it undermines and potentially discredits anything they hoped to accomplish with that ad.
But as far as the ad is concerned, clearly someone was looking for a spot on the SE corner of Stuyvesant Square, and not a location in Brooklyn. As I mentioned before, Apple Maps gives the park an erroneous address too. So what happens if someone looks at Apple's Maps and gives someone the address Apple incorrectly assigns to the Park? The person they gave it to searches for an address which according to your methodology is NOT a real address. So how could this have happened in the Google Ad? Simple, someone plopped down a pin where they wanted to meet their friend and gave them the resulting address. And guess what, you do that in Apple Maps and it gives you the same address.
So you may not agree with it, but both Apple and Google's Maps apps both show such property address, which are indeed real, whether the USPS delivers mail there or not.
Guys, don't take my word for it, type "315 E 15th St, NY" into Google Maps and have a look around for yourselves with Street View. No mailbox in site. Maybe this is where the local druggies go to score, that would explain the police tape in the fourth picture...
Click each image for full sized view.
Here's the spot Google Street View says is the so-called address (the red "A" in the lower left):
A view of the park looking down (the same location for the red "A"):
And zoomed out to show the park takes up the length of the whole block (again, the same location for the red "A"):
And a view of the park from the side street (nice police tape):
The fact that Apple "Fixed" the issue means that they had it wrong in the first place, and Google was right. I know that's hard to admit defeat here in AI, but it's okay. It's not the end of the world that Apple decided to downgrade the experience of iOS, it's for everyones benefit...
Surely you must've not known that this is the walking route suggesting to use two ferry connections to cut 6 hours of travel time?
No problem, your mistake, all is forgiven.
What is that?
You don't like how Google is patronizing you on your spiritual journey to enlightenment, tainting it by suggesting another form of transportation instead of walking to shorten your trip?
Well, lucky you there is a big hint that ferries are included in the route and an option to exclude the ferries and get a walking only-route!
Disingenuous posts like that no matter what company you prefer should be a bannable offense, it just poisons the conversation.
Yes, I just registered for this post to highlight this travesty.
It's called an example that I pulled from Google images to illustrate that Google Maps isn't always going to be perfect. Here is another.
Do you want to argue this is just a "walking route" to help you get more exercise and see the sights?
Bottom line: Apple's maps are flawed but for you et al. to make sweeping implications that Google Maps is flawless isn't only BS but also a bit insane as there are real arguments you could make against Apple Maps if you actually put in the effort to form a cogent argument.
Note that I have said since the first iOS 6 beta they are shipping Apple Maps too soon, although having to re-negotiate a deal with Google month before iOS 7 or having to replace the Maps app mi iOS 6 cycle are neither good solutions so this is the best of bad options they had to chose from, which solidifies the need even more than ever that Apple needs to control their Maps app.
The fact that Apple "Fixed" the issue means that they had it wrong in the first place, and Google was right. I know that's hard to admit defeat here in AI, but it's okay. It's not the end of the world that Apple decided to downgrade the experience of iOS, it's for everyones benefit...
Sorry the lie is still a lie and what Apple's doing is crowdsourcing and anyone can do to correct goorola's lie.
They had no choice but to do it manually, because they don't have the ability to, "[leverage] the power of the computer that stores the database." They don't have access directly to Apple's servers, so, yes, absolutely, they paid people to do it.
They didn't do it just for the ad, they did it for this entire astroturfing, media shepherding, PR campaign they have launched against Apple's Maps. But, it's clear they had to dig pretty deep for some pretty arcane results. Getting shut out from iPhone users will put a big hit on their revenues, they have no scruples, so, yes, absolutely.
Google doesn't need direct access to Apple's servers to use computers to search for discrepancies. Knowing what area they would want to use in an ad, they would have a program make queries to Apple's servers using addresses from that region and compare the coordinates of the results to those in their own database. All discrepancies would be added to a list; any discrepancy on that list would be equally usable because the programmers would already have defined a region (in this case NYC or possibly an even more specific region) where the results could be located. Using one of these incorrectly listed points, they would create an ad showing the on-screen results of searching for the known problem address.
It's really quite simple.
And with regards to your idea that Google is creating all the news about Apple's maps, your unbelievably delusional. This website is the only thing creating news stories out of nothing.
It's called an example that I pulled from Google images to illustrate that Google Maps isn't always going to be perfect. Here is another.
Do you want to argue this is just a "walking route" to help you get more exercise and see the sights?
Bottom line: Apple's maps are flawed but for you et al. to make sweeping implications that Google Maps is flawless isn't only BS but also a bit insane as there are real arguments you could make against Apple Maps if you actually put in the effort to form a cogent argument.
Note that I have said since the first iOS 6 beta they are shipping Apple Maps too soon, although having to re-negotiate a deal with Google month before iOS 7 or having to replace the Maps app mi iOS 6 cycle are neither good solutions so this is the best of bad options they had to chose from, which solidifies the need even more than ever that Apple needs to control their Maps app.
First of all, where in my posts do I implicate that Google Maps is flawless - please point to the appropriate text passage or quit projecting your fantasies on me. I merely pointed out that this cropped screen-shot of your example doesn't hold up in an argument.
I appreciate the name calling though, hopefully the mods will too.
Second - and I'm repeating myself here - the ferries shave off 6 hours of your trip and there is an option to exclude them from your "walking trip" which makes it a grand total of 33 hours instead of 27.
Third, thank you for providing another angle of your dishonesty by showing an outdated screen-shot of Google Maps, when the current directions looks like this:
I'll give you a tip: The "but back then theirs was bad too"-argument doesn't hold up well in any industry.
Fact is that currently iOS maps isn't on the same level as Google Maps and Apple has catching up to do.
Doubting the capability of a company to do so and criticizing the political motive behind it is well within everyone's right as long as there is evidence of severe faults in the maps application itself (see user reports). The future will show how fast Apple can improve it, but for the moment I'd hazard a guess that the average iPhone user would prefer to have both solutions run in parallel for at least a year and I don't believe the majority applauds Apple for cutting off Google in the same way some of the die-hard fans (those that ponder about the political motives behind the move) on internet boards do.
You would've been more credible if you posted pictures of a distorted bridge/dam, on which both mapping solutions seem to have problems with (wonder about Nokia's maps there).
here is a shot from google maps. geyer and riverside marked wrong. been reported many times since 2007, never fixed.
Dont need to fake an address with google, just look for the right address or road and it gets it wrong. Also it puts my old house about 1000 feet down the road from its actual location.
here is a shot from google maps. geyer and riverside marked wrong. been reported many times since 2007, never fixed.
Dont need to fake an address with google, just look for the right address or road and it gets it wrong. Also it puts my old house about 1000 feet down the road from its actual location.
Lame
Is Bing Maps right on this?
Tried with Google Maps and got Geyer and Riverside mixed in both the top street and the one of the right.
...And with regards to your idea that Google is creating all the news about Apple's maps, your unbelievably delusional. This website is the only thing creating news stories out of nothing.
Tell me that this wasn't created just to make as much mileage about the Apple Maps beatup. Whomever runs this account has been attacking anyone who tweets with tags that alert this account to a dissenting view. Didn't like me writing that Goog Maps has had my property elsewhere to its actual location for years. 'You'reunbelievably delusional' is the expression you were after.
Google doesn't need direct access to Apple's servers to use computers to search for discrepancies. Knowing what area they would want to use in an ad, they would have a program make queries to Apple's servers using addresses from that region and compare the coordinates of the results to those in their own database. All discrepancies would be added to a list; any discrepancy on that list would be equally usable because the programmers would already have defined a region (in this case NYC or possibly an even more specific region) where the results could be located. Using one of these incorrectly listed points, they would create an ad showing the on-screen results of searching for the known problem address.
It's really quite simple.
And with regards to your idea that Google is creating all the news about Apple's maps, your unbelievably delusional. This website is the only thing creating news stories out of nothing.
You're making the rash assumption that just any old bot can query Apple's map servers. That may not be the case. Also, searching for what isn't there is not as easy as you seem to think. But, either way, they had obviously been sifting through Apple's map data for some time prior to the release of i
As for your point that I'm delusional, you're either incredibly naive or totally out of touch. Companies, particularly Google, feed the media stories all the time. It's also pretty well known that they pay people to post on sites like this, pretending to be ordinary "citizens", and pushing the company "story". Sometimes what looks like a coordinated media/astroturfing blitz, timed to hit the street the day after iOS 6 was released and the day before the iPhone 5 was, is in fact just that and not a coincidence. Is "all" the noise from Google? No. But did they kick off and stimulate this particular controversy? I think it has their fingerprints all over it.
It's not like Google has shown themselves to be some sort of paragon of virtue. On the contrary, they've shown themselves to be a dishonest, in fact criminal, organization that has no respect for the any norms of ethical behavior. As a company (and perhaps this stems from the persons at the top) Google has demonstrated time and again that they are a psychopathic organization. They have no sense of right or wrong. They have no conscience. Absolutely nothing restrains their behavior, a psychopath will do anything they think will benefit them.
It depends a bit on what you regard as an irrelevant address. Search algorithms are generally programmed to be helpful for malformed or incomplete queries, and so returning the nearest likely address is not necessarily a bad result.
However, that doesn't appear to have been the issue here; originally iOS maps seemed to return the "correct" address when "Manhattan" was included in the query, but not if it was omitted. Now it works either way. That rather kills the argument that iOS maps correctly identified the nearest instance of that address, since it clearly does recognize it as a valid address.
Apparently you either didn't read or understand the article this thread is attached to. You seemed to have missed the part where Apple Maps returned the nearest instance where it was a real address. Only if Manhattan were included in the query, thus excluding, "the nearest instance where it was a real address," did it return an interpolated address in Manhattan that doesn't exist.
That rather kills your whole perspective on the issue. The fact that they've tweaked the algorithm in response to this nonsense is neither here nor there. The argument that the way Google Maps was returning results is the correct one is begging the question. Both approaches have their merits and downsides. Just because Apple was originally handling a query for a fake address differently than Google doesn't make them wrong -- unless we assume that however Google does it is always right -- it just makes it different.
What does make someone wrong here is Google putting out this ad when they had to have known the circumstances surrounding the address in question, and of course knew they were being entirely deceptive. In fact, that rather kills the argument that this entire "controversy" isn't a story being pushed by Google
It depends a bit on what you regard as an irrelevant address. Search algorithms are generally programmed to be helpful for malformed or incomplete queries, and so returning the nearest likely address is not necessarily a bad result.
However, that doesn't appear to have been the issue here; originally iOS maps seemed to return the "correct" address when "Manhattan" was included in the query, but not if it was omitted. Now it works either way. That rather kills the argument that iOS maps correctly identified the nearest instance of that address, since it clearly does recognize it as a valid address.
Apparently you either didn't read or understand the article this thread is attached to. You seemed to have missed the part where Apple Maps returned the nearest instance where it was a real address. Only if Manhattan were included in the query, thus excluding, "the nearest instance where it was a real address," did it return an interpolated address in Manhattan that doesn't exist.
That rather kills your whole perspective on the issue. The fact that they've tweaked the algorithm in response to this nonsense is neither here nor there. The argument that the way Google Maps was returning results is the correct one is begging the question. Both approaches have their merits and downsides. Just because Apple was originally handling a query for a fake address differently than Google doesn't make them wrong -- unless we assume that however Google does it is always right -- it just makes it different.
What does make someone wrong here is Google putting out this ad when they had to have known the circumstances surrounding the address in question, and of course knew they were being entirely deceptive. In fact, that rather kills the argument that this entire "controversy" isn't a story being pushed by Google
I don't think you read the context of my reply. Note that my very first point is in defense of returning the nearest actual matching address.
I wasn't arguing that Google's results were more correct than Apple's, nor defending the use of the address to make the ad, just noting that the argument that Apple might deliberately be excluding non-existent addresses from the results is weakened when the address was returned when including the Manhattan qualifier.
That it is also now returned without the Manhattan qualifier in the query is likely due to all the fuss, but does also suggest that they do not have an implemented policy of excluding such addresses.
Personally I would like to see such addresses returned with a note stating that they are non-existent, interpolated locations.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Simply because of how I perceive you will take the responses that I assume you will receive for it. Nothing more.
B-b-b-ut we just met! I can change! /s
Anyway anyone can try out that particular example for themselves.
315 E 15th Street is as valid an address for Stuyvesant Square as any other contained in that particular block. Just because the USPS won't deliver to it, doesn't invalidate it as an address to the city, county, state and federal government. The NYC parks department even indicates that the park encompasses a series of addresses with specified boundaries on its website, since the park itself does not officially have an address.
As I pointed out before, Apple Maps actually gives the park an address -- 297 2nd Ave, an address which the USPS also says is NOT a real address, not to mention that the NYC parks does not acknowledge a specific address. So Apple is telling me incorrect information, and giving me a fake address that nobody would ever go looking for.
Honestly I don't understand why you continue to make this issue out of the address being real simply because it is not aknowledged by the USPS. It's a real address to the City of NY, so it's real. Everywhere somebody wants to go doesn't have to be an address that accepts mail. Yes Google picked a bad example, yes very few people would actually ever look for that address, and using it undermines and potentially discredits anything they hoped to accomplish with that ad.
But as far as the ad is concerned, clearly someone was looking for a spot on the SE corner of Stuyvesant Square, and not a location in Brooklyn. As I mentioned before, Apple Maps gives the park an erroneous address too. So what happens if someone looks at Apple's Maps and gives someone the address Apple incorrectly assigns to the Park? The person they gave it to searches for an address which according to your methodology is NOT a real address. So how could this have happened in the Google Ad? Simple, someone plopped down a pin where they wanted to meet their friend and gave them the resulting address. And guess what, you do that in Apple Maps and it gives you the same address.
So you may not agree with it, but both Apple and Google's Maps apps both show such property address, which are indeed real, whether the USPS delivers mail there or not.
Guys, don't take my word for it, type "315 E 15th St, NY" into Google Maps and have a look around for yourselves with Street View. No mailbox in site. Maybe this is where the local druggies go to score, that would explain the police tape in the fourth picture...
Click each image for full sized view.
Here's the spot Google Street View says is the so-called address (the red "A" in the lower left):
A view of the park looking down (the same location for the red "A"):
And zoomed out to show the park takes up the length of the whole block (again, the same location for the red "A"):
And a view of the park from the side street (nice police tape):
It's fun to use Google to refute Google!
Sorry DeD, but the address was not "faked". DEBUNKED http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/27/sorry-apple-fans-the-googlemotorola-fake-address-scandal-is-no-scandal-at-all/
The fact that Apple "Fixed" the issue means that they had it wrong in the first place, and Google was right. I know that's hard to admit defeat here in AI, but it's okay. It's not the end of the world that Apple decided to downgrade the experience of iOS, it's for everyones benefit...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
This has to be the most cult-like comment on this board...and you probably do not even realize how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I sacrifice a goat every time I have to restart my Mac. All hail our bootstrap overloads! Do I have the most cult-like comment on the board now?
LOL'd
It's called an example that I pulled from Google images to illustrate that Google Maps isn't always going to be perfect. Here is another.
Do you want to argue this is just a "walking route" to help you get more exercise and see the sights?
Bottom line: Apple's maps are flawed but for you et al. to make sweeping implications that Google Maps is flawless isn't only BS but also a bit insane as there are real arguments you could make against Apple Maps if you actually put in the effort to form a cogent argument.
Note that I have said since the first iOS 6 beta they are shipping Apple Maps too soon, although having to re-negotiate a deal with Google month before iOS 7 or having to replace the Maps app mi iOS 6 cycle are neither good solutions so this is the best of bad options they had to chose from, which solidifies the need even more than ever that Apple needs to control their Maps app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Sorry DeD, but the address was not "faked". DEBUNKED http://venturebeat.com/2012/09/27/sorry-apple-fans-the-googlemotorola-fake-address-scandal-is-no-scandal-at-all/
The fact that Apple "Fixed" the issue means that they had it wrong in the first place, and Google was right. I know that's hard to admit defeat here in AI, but it's okay. It's not the end of the world that Apple decided to downgrade the experience of iOS, it's for everyones benefit...
Sorry the lie is still a lie and what Apple's doing is crowdsourcing and anyone can do to correct goorola's lie.
Nice. I be sure not to give my $$$ to MotoGoogle ever. They are just evil
Cheers !
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's called an example that I pulled from Google images to illustrate that Google Maps isn't always going to be perfect. Here is another.
That screenshot looks very old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, absolutely.
They had no choice but to do it manually, because they don't have the ability to, "[leverage] the power of the computer that stores the database." They don't have access directly to Apple's servers, so, yes, absolutely, they paid people to do it.
They didn't do it just for the ad, they did it for this entire astroturfing, media shepherding, PR campaign they have launched against Apple's Maps. But, it's clear they had to dig pretty deep for some pretty arcane results. Getting shut out from iPhone users will put a big hit on their revenues, they have no scruples, so, yes, absolutely.
Google doesn't need direct access to Apple's servers to use computers to search for discrepancies. Knowing what area they would want to use in an ad, they would have a program make queries to Apple's servers using addresses from that region and compare the coordinates of the results to those in their own database. All discrepancies would be added to a list; any discrepancy on that list would be equally usable because the programmers would already have defined a region (in this case NYC or possibly an even more specific region) where the results could be located. Using one of these incorrectly listed points, they would create an ad showing the on-screen results of searching for the known problem address.
It's really quite simple.
And with regards to your idea that Google is creating all the news about Apple's maps, your unbelievably delusional. This website is the only thing creating news stories out of nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's called an example that I pulled from Google images to illustrate that Google Maps isn't always going to be perfect. Here is another.
Do you want to argue this is just a "walking route" to help you get more exercise and see the sights?
Bottom line: Apple's maps are flawed but for you et al. to make sweeping implications that Google Maps is flawless isn't only BS but also a bit insane as there are real arguments you could make against Apple Maps if you actually put in the effort to form a cogent argument.
Note that I have said since the first iOS 6 beta they are shipping Apple Maps too soon, although having to re-negotiate a deal with Google month before iOS 7 or having to replace the Maps app mi iOS 6 cycle are neither good solutions so this is the best of bad options they had to chose from, which solidifies the need even more than ever that Apple needs to control their Maps app.
First of all, where in my posts do I implicate that Google Maps is flawless - please point to the appropriate text passage or quit projecting your fantasies on me. I merely pointed out that this cropped screen-shot of your example doesn't hold up in an argument.
I appreciate the name calling though, hopefully the mods will too.
Second - and I'm repeating myself here - the ferries shave off 6 hours of your trip and there is an option to exclude them from your "walking trip" which makes it a grand total of 33 hours instead of 27.
Third, thank you for providing another angle of your dishonesty by showing an outdated screen-shot of Google Maps, when the current directions looks like this:
I'll give you a tip: The "but back then theirs was bad too"-argument doesn't hold up well in any industry.
Fact is that currently iOS maps isn't on the same level as Google Maps and Apple has catching up to do.
Doubting the capability of a company to do so and criticizing the political motive behind it is well within everyone's right as long as there is evidence of severe faults in the maps application itself (see user reports). The future will show how fast Apple can improve it, but for the moment I'd hazard a guess that the average iPhone user would prefer to have both solutions run in parallel for at least a year and I don't believe the majority applauds Apple for cutting off Google in the same way some of the die-hard fans (those that ponder about the political motives behind the move) on internet boards do.
You would've been more credible if you posted pictures of a distorted bridge/dam, on which both mapping solutions seem to have problems with (wonder about Nokia's maps there).
here is a shot from google maps. geyer and riverside marked wrong. been reported many times since 2007, never fixed.
Dont need to fake an address with google, just look for the right address or road and it gets it wrong. Also it puts my old house about 1000 feet down the road from its actual location.
Lame
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueDogRandy
here is a shot from google maps. geyer and riverside marked wrong. been reported many times since 2007, never fixed.
Dont need to fake an address with google, just look for the right address or road and it gets it wrong. Also it puts my old house about 1000 feet down the road from its actual location.
Lame
Is Bing Maps right on this?
Tried with Google Maps and got Geyer and Riverside mixed in both the top street and the one of the right.
I tried to comment but "the man" isn't letting me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
...And with regards to your idea that Google is creating all the news about Apple's maps, your unbelievably delusional. This website is the only thing creating news stories out of nothing.
Tell me that this wasn't created just to make as much mileage about the Apple Maps beatup. Whomever runs this account has been attacking anyone who tweets with tags that alert this account to a dissenting view. Didn't like me writing that Goog Maps has had my property elsewhere to its actual location for years. 'You're unbelievably delusional' is the expression you were after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Google doesn't need direct access to Apple's servers to use computers to search for discrepancies. Knowing what area they would want to use in an ad, they would have a program make queries to Apple's servers using addresses from that region and compare the coordinates of the results to those in their own database. All discrepancies would be added to a list; any discrepancy on that list would be equally usable because the programmers would already have defined a region (in this case NYC or possibly an even more specific region) where the results could be located. Using one of these incorrectly listed points, they would create an ad showing the on-screen results of searching for the known problem address.
It's really quite simple.
And with regards to your idea that Google is creating all the news about Apple's maps, your unbelievably delusional. This website is the only thing creating news stories out of nothing.
You're making the rash assumption that just any old bot can query Apple's map servers. That may not be the case. Also, searching for what isn't there is not as easy as you seem to think. But, either way, they had obviously been sifting through Apple's map data for some time prior to the release of i
As for your point that I'm delusional, you're either incredibly naive or totally out of touch. Companies, particularly Google, feed the media stories all the time. It's also pretty well known that they pay people to post on sites like this, pretending to be ordinary "citizens", and pushing the company "story". Sometimes what looks like a coordinated media/astroturfing blitz, timed to hit the street the day after iOS 6 was released and the day before the iPhone 5 was, is in fact just that and not a coincidence. Is "all" the noise from Google? No. But did they kick off and stimulate this particular controversy? I think it has their fingerprints all over it.
It's not like Google has shown themselves to be some sort of paragon of virtue. On the contrary, they've shown themselves to be a dishonest, in fact criminal, organization that has no respect for the any norms of ethical behavior. As a company (and perhaps this stems from the persons at the top) Google has demonstrated time and again that they are a psychopathic organization. They have no sense of right or wrong. They have no conscience. Absolutely nothing restrains their behavior, a psychopath will do anything they think will benefit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
It depends a bit on what you regard as an irrelevant address. Search algorithms are generally programmed to be helpful for malformed or incomplete queries, and so returning the nearest likely address is not necessarily a bad result.
However, that doesn't appear to have been the issue here; originally iOS maps seemed to return the "correct" address when "Manhattan" was included in the query, but not if it was omitted. Now it works either way. That rather kills the argument that iOS maps correctly identified the nearest instance of that address, since it clearly does recognize it as a valid address.
Apparently you either didn't read or understand the article this thread is attached to. You seemed to have missed the part where Apple Maps returned the nearest instance where it was a real address. Only if Manhattan were included in the query, thus excluding, "the nearest instance where it was a real address," did it return an interpolated address in Manhattan that doesn't exist.
That rather kills your whole perspective on the issue. The fact that they've tweaked the algorithm in response to this nonsense is neither here nor there. The argument that the way Google Maps was returning results is the correct one is begging the question. Both approaches have their merits and downsides. Just because Apple was originally handling a query for a fake address differently than Google doesn't make them wrong -- unless we assume that however Google does it is always right -- it just makes it different.
What does make someone wrong here is Google putting out this ad when they had to have known the circumstances surrounding the address in question, and of course knew they were being entirely deceptive. In fact, that rather kills the argument that this entire "controversy" isn't a story being pushed by Google
I don't think you read the context of my reply. Note that my very first point is in defense of returning the nearest actual matching address.
I wasn't arguing that Google's results were more correct than Apple's, nor defending the use of the address to make the ad, just noting that the argument that Apple might deliberately be excluding non-existent addresses from the results is weakened when the address was returned when including the Manhattan qualifier.
That it is also now returned without the Manhattan qualifier in the query is likely due to all the fuss, but does also suggest that they do not have an implemented policy of excluding such addresses.
Personally I would like to see such addresses returned with a note stating that they are non-existent, interpolated locations.
deleted