Bold is mine, and yes, it's important. What I said is that Google Maps did not replace anything; changing my wording to imply something else and attacking that is a straw man fallacy. Apple Maps DID replace Google Maps as an app on iOS (the web alternative already existed before, so it can't be considered), thus creating the expectation that it should be at least as good as what it replaced.
OK, so, you're arguing, that anyone who releases software that replaces existing software (which must have been released first if it's being "replaced", but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument) must be perfect, but it's ok for the existing software to suck?
I want to make sure we have this straight since it's always so hard to figure out what you are trying to say.
I don't think anyone can defend Apple over maps BUT I have a hard time believing bad directions could be a life or death situation. At some point wouldn't the driver figure out they're going the way and turn around? And if you were going out to the middle of nowhere wouldn't you make sure you were prepared just in case you got stranded or something?
A few years ago, a writer for CNET got stranded in a snowstorm while driving back from Oregon over a mountain pass. While MapQuest didn't provide "bad directions," the road they took was not safe for winter use, but of course, MapQuest doesn't know that. The man died of exposure after being stranded for several days (his wife and infant survived). Not enough food or water, not wearing coats for cold weather. No cell phone coverage.
My point is that even if you aren't given bad directions, any trip is life threatening if you aren't prepared, or fail to take into account weather or road conditions, observe road signs, or use common sense. The map directions alone can't kill you, even if it told you to drive off a cliff and into an active volcano.
This is nonsense. EVERY mapping system has flaws. There is absolutely no evidence that Apple's Maps is any worse than any of the other mapping systems. Sure, you can find errors in Apple's Maps that don't appear on Google Maps and vice versa, but in the few cases where people have done large scale comparisons, Apple comes out looking just as good as Google.
So where's your evidence that they didn't test it thoroughly enough? Anecdotes don't count.
I suspect they were put up to it by Google or another of Apple's competitors. It didn't happen for months after the release of Apple Maps and suddenly there are a string of the exact same error involving people who use Apple Maps to go to the same small remote city and are all too stupid to realize that there's a problem? Sounds like a set up.
I've used quite a few mapping systems. Mapquest. Google Maps (computer). Google Maps (Android). TomTom. Garmin. Four different car navigation systems. And every single one of them has had some problems, so only an idiot would blindly follow the technology into a dangerous situation. Didn't anyone bother to read the street signs? Learn a little bit about the area before wandering in? And didn't it look suspicious when the road turned into a narrow walking trail (or no trail at all)? If it's not a set up, then these people truly are candidates for the Darwin Award.
All your ranting aside, there is plenty of proof that on an overall level, Apple Maps is worse off than other mapping software. I looked up Mildura in Google Maps and what do you know, it placed it right where it's supposed to be. So for this particular case, Apple Maps is without a doubt worse off than Google Maps.
No, my point is that the Australian police are behaving irresponsibly when they single out a single mapping service, implying, without evidence, that the others are perfectly safe to use uncritically.
Lol...so now the Australian police are "behaving irresponsibly"? Even though they have had MULTIPLE instances of people getting themselves into life-threatening situations using a common mapping application, they should just stay quite until they have had a chance to critically evaluate EVERY other mapping application for 'fairness'?
OK, so, you're arguing, that anyone who releases software that replaces existing software (which must have been released first if it's being "replaced", but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument) must be perfect, but it's ok for the existing software to suck?
No, let us not ignore that, let me shut that formal logic fallacy down right now. Just because replacement implies precedence does not mean precedence implies replacement, thus making it wrong to deduce that my statement is based on precedence. Since you seem to have a hard time grasping abstraction, let me give you a concrete example where precedence exists without replacement: Nokia Maps preceded Apple Maps, yet nobody is complaining about the lack of information on the latter compared to the former. Why? Because Nokia Maps was never available as a tightly integrated native app built into iOS' core, so Apple Maps didn't replace it.
I cannot comment on the Apple map app as I still use iOS 5 on my iPhone 4. I have avoided using Google's map app after blindly trusting it to get me from Chicago to Florida last summer. First, Google directed me to go through Louisville despite major road construction on I-65, where there was only one lane of traffic on the Ohio River bridge. If I had only followed Mapquest's first and second recommendation of going through Cincinnati, I would have saved over 4 hours of travel time. Due to the loss in travel time, I was stuck in another tie-up north of Knoxville so I made reservations at a hotel in Knoxville and took Google's recommendation of getting off the expressway and ending up on a one-lane dirt road full of huge ruts making it more like a 3/4-lane road. Fortunately, I somehow made it back to I-65, otherwise they might be finding my corpse just about now in a deep ravine of northern Tennessee. Google also could not find my final destination to a house on a private road in Amelia Island Plantation. On the return trip, I followed Mapquest's directions of going through Cincinnati and made the trip in one day -- over 6 hours less driving time than the Google trip down to Florida.
Another example of the poor quality of the Google map app is that the recommendation from my home to work place results in a one-way trip that is 1.6 miles and typically 5 to 10 minutes longer than the route Mapquest recommends.
No, my point is that the Australian police are behaving irresponsibly when they single out a single mapping service, implying, without evidence, that the others are perfectly safe to use uncritically.
Are they actually implying that others are safe to use? Or is that something you came up with to excuse Apple Maps? Because nowhere in the police statement do I see the police endorse any other mapping system or your claim even remotely being implied.
All I see is that they investigated and found out that Apple Maps was the root cause of these few incidences due to incorrect mapping data. And all they are doing is telling everyone to not use Apple Maps until Apple has corrected this problem or they might end up in the same positions as those unlucky others. Nothing more, nothing less.
No, let us not ignore that, let me shut that formal logic fallacy down right now. Just because replacement implies precedence does not mean precedence implies replacement, thus making it wrong to deduce that my statement is based on precedence. Since you seem to have a hard time grasping abstraction, let me give you a concrete example where precedence exists without replacement: Nokia Maps preceded Apple Maps, yet nobody is complaining about the lack of information on the latter compared to the former. Why? Because Nokia Maps was never available as a tightly integrated native app built into iOS' core, so Apple Maps didn't replace it.
You seem to have that all backwards, but, then, I'm still trying to figure out what you were trying to say previously. Are you just dodging that question, or are you not sure either?
All your ranting aside, there is plenty of proof that on an overall level, Apple Maps is worse off than other mapping software. I looked up Mildura in Google Maps and what do you know, it placed it right where it's supposed to be. So for this particular case, Apple Maps is without a doubt worse off than Google Maps.
Ranting? So making a logical, factual argument is ranting?
Meanwhile, you and all the others who are screaming "Apple Maps sucks" (even though you haven't been able to show any reasonable comparison to support your claims) are not? (Note - just choosing one location where Apple fails is not evidence. There are also locations where Google fails and Apple gets it right. You're confusing 'anecdote' with 'evidence').
As I said, any future arguments you may have have already been refuted.
ROTFLMAO.
So you've just proven that you aren't even capable of the simplest logical argument. You' refuted any future arguments I may have? You can do that without knowing what topic I might discuss or what the argument might be?
Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you don't have the slightest concept of logical discussion.
Are they actually implying that others are safe to use? Or is that something you came up with to excuse Apple Maps? Because nowhere in the police statement do I see the police endorse any other mapping system or your claim even remotely being implied.
Well, if they were "endorsing" other solutions, they wouldn't be implying it, would they. That's not a question, Bob.
Have people ever gotten lost using other mapping solutions? Did the Australian police issue statements saying they presented a life threatening issue? If so, I withdraw my statement, otherwise, I stand by it. Frankly, I think they are just caught up in the hysteria, too.
I don't think anyone can defend Apple over maps BUT I have a hard time believing bad directions could be a life or death situation. At some point wouldn't the driver figure out they're going the way and turn around? And if you were going out to the middle of nowhere wouldn't you make sure you were prepared just in case you got stranded or something?
Sure, you can find errors in Apple's Maps that don't appear on Google Maps and vice versa, but in the few cases where people have done large scale comparisons, Apple comes out looking just as good as Google.
Do you have any references to these "large scale comparisons"?
Lol...so now the Australian police are "behaving irresponsibly"? Even though they have had MULTIPLE instances of people getting themselves into life-threatening situations using a common mapping application, they should just stay quite until they have had a chance to critically evaluate EVERY other mapping application for 'fairness'?
So, you are claiming that no one ever got lost in Australia using any other mapping service?
You seem to have that all backwards, but, then, I'm still trying to figure out what you were trying to say previously. Are you just dodging that question, or are you not sure either?
I'm not dodging the question at, I even gave you another concrete example so you could make the comparison and understand what I'm saying, so I can't really understand how you read that as me avoiding the question. I've already fully explained what I said a number of times: Google Maps did not replace anything; Nokia Maps did not replace anything; so yes they can suck because people had no reason to expect anything from them. Apple Maps DID replace Google Maps, so no, it can not suck any more than Google Maps does, because by replacing Google Maps it essentially accepts the burden of being up to Google Maps' standards.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
You are the one, who is 'crying; personal attacks???
Hmmm
yes...did you see the moderators response? No harm no foul so......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Now this is something that would have actually been "disastrous".
Why would it be disastrous, since it was rolled out to the entire world and every country has fault with the app?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Bold is mine, and yes, it's important. What I said is that Google Maps did not replace anything; changing my wording to imply something else and attacking that is a straw man fallacy. Apple Maps DID replace Google Maps as an app on iOS (the web alternative already existed before, so it can't be considered), thus creating the expectation that it should be at least as good as what it replaced.
OK, so, you're arguing, that anyone who releases software that replaces existing software (which must have been released first if it's being "replaced", but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument) must be perfect, but it's ok for the existing software to suck?
I want to make sure we have this straight since it's always so hard to figure out what you are trying to say.
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Why would it be disastrous…
Leaving the entire world save NA without a native mapping app at all? Let's think.
…since it was rolled out to the entire world and every country has fault with the app?
Every country has fault with Google Maps. What's the point?
A few years ago, a writer for CNET got stranded in a snowstorm while driving back from Oregon over a mountain pass. While MapQuest didn't provide "bad directions," the road they took was not safe for winter use, but of course, MapQuest doesn't know that. The man died of exposure after being stranded for several days (his wife and infant survived). Not enough food or water, not wearing coats for cold weather. No cell phone coverage.
My point is that even if you aren't given bad directions, any trip is life threatening if you aren't prepared, or fail to take into account weather or road conditions, observe road signs, or use common sense. The map directions alone can't kill you, even if it told you to drive off a cliff and into an active volcano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This is nonsense. EVERY mapping system has flaws. There is absolutely no evidence that Apple's Maps is any worse than any of the other mapping systems. Sure, you can find errors in Apple's Maps that don't appear on Google Maps and vice versa, but in the few cases where people have done large scale comparisons, Apple comes out looking just as good as Google.
So where's your evidence that they didn't test it thoroughly enough? Anecdotes don't count.
I suspect they were put up to it by Google or another of Apple's competitors. It didn't happen for months after the release of Apple Maps and suddenly there are a string of the exact same error involving people who use Apple Maps to go to the same small remote city and are all too stupid to realize that there's a problem? Sounds like a set up.
I've used quite a few mapping systems. Mapquest. Google Maps (computer). Google Maps (Android). TomTom. Garmin. Four different car navigation systems. And every single one of them has had some problems, so only an idiot would blindly follow the technology into a dangerous situation. Didn't anyone bother to read the street signs? Learn a little bit about the area before wandering in? And didn't it look suspicious when the road turned into a narrow walking trail (or no trail at all)? If it's not a set up, then these people truly are candidates for the Darwin Award.
All your ranting aside, there is plenty of proof that on an overall level, Apple Maps is worse off than other mapping software. I looked up Mildura in Google Maps and what do you know, it placed it right where it's supposed to be. So for this particular case, Apple Maps is without a doubt worse off than Google Maps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
No, my point is that the Australian police are behaving irresponsibly when they single out a single mapping service, implying, without evidence, that the others are perfectly safe to use uncritically.
Lol...so now the Australian police are "behaving irresponsibly"? Even though they have had MULTIPLE instances of people getting themselves into life-threatening situations using a common mapping application, they should just stay quite until they have had a chance to critically evaluate EVERY other mapping application for 'fairness'?
No, let us not ignore that, let me shut that formal logic fallacy down right now. Just because replacement implies precedence does not mean precedence implies replacement, thus making it wrong to deduce that my statement is based on precedence. Since you seem to have a hard time grasping abstraction, let me give you a concrete example where precedence exists without replacement: Nokia Maps preceded Apple Maps, yet nobody is complaining about the lack of information on the latter compared to the former. Why? Because Nokia Maps was never available as a tightly integrated native app built into iOS' core, so Apple Maps didn't replace it.
I cannot comment on the Apple map app as I still use iOS 5 on my iPhone 4. I have avoided using Google's map app after blindly trusting it to get me from Chicago to Florida last summer. First, Google directed me to go through Louisville despite major road construction on I-65, where there was only one lane of traffic on the Ohio River bridge. If I had only followed Mapquest's first and second recommendation of going through Cincinnati, I would have saved over 4 hours of travel time. Due to the loss in travel time, I was stuck in another tie-up north of Knoxville so I made reservations at a hotel in Knoxville and took Google's recommendation of getting off the expressway and ending up on a one-lane dirt road full of huge ruts making it more like a 3/4-lane road. Fortunately, I somehow made it back to I-65, otherwise they might be finding my corpse just about now in a deep ravine of northern Tennessee. Google also could not find my final destination to a house on a private road in Amelia Island Plantation. On the return trip, I followed Mapquest's directions of going through Cincinnati and made the trip in one day -- over 6 hours less driving time than the Google trip down to Florida.
Another example of the poor quality of the Google map app is that the recommendation from my home to work place results in a one-way trip that is 1.6 miles and typically 5 to 10 minutes longer than the route Mapquest recommends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
No, my point is that the Australian police are behaving irresponsibly when they single out a single mapping service, implying, without evidence, that the others are perfectly safe to use uncritically.
Are they actually implying that others are safe to use? Or is that something you came up with to excuse Apple Maps? Because nowhere in the police statement do I see the police endorse any other mapping system or your claim even remotely being implied.
All I see is that they investigated and found out that Apple Maps was the root cause of these few incidences due to incorrect mapping data. And all they are doing is telling everyone to not use Apple Maps until Apple has corrected this problem or they might end up in the same positions as those unlucky others. Nothing more, nothing less.
I see nothing wrong with what the police did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
No, let us not ignore that, let me shut that formal logic fallacy down right now. Just because replacement implies precedence does not mean precedence implies replacement, thus making it wrong to deduce that my statement is based on precedence. Since you seem to have a hard time grasping abstraction, let me give you a concrete example where precedence exists without replacement: Nokia Maps preceded Apple Maps, yet nobody is complaining about the lack of information on the latter compared to the former. Why? Because Nokia Maps was never available as a tightly integrated native app built into iOS' core, so Apple Maps didn't replace it.
You seem to have that all backwards, but, then, I'm still trying to figure out what you were trying to say previously. Are you just dodging that question, or are you not sure either?
Ranting? So making a logical, factual argument is ranting?
Meanwhile, you and all the others who are screaming "Apple Maps sucks" (even though you haven't been able to show any reasonable comparison to support your claims) are not? (Note - just choosing one location where Apple fails is not evidence. There are also locations where Google fails and Apple gets it right. You're confusing 'anecdote' with 'evidence').
Wow. Just wow.
ROTFLMAO.
So you've just proven that you aren't even capable of the simplest logical argument. You' refuted any future arguments I may have? You can do that without knowing what topic I might discuss or what the argument might be?
Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you don't have the slightest concept of logical discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsianBob
Are they actually implying that others are safe to use? Or is that something you came up with to excuse Apple Maps? Because nowhere in the police statement do I see the police endorse any other mapping system or your claim even remotely being implied.
Well, if they were "endorsing" other solutions, they wouldn't be implying it, would they. That's not a question, Bob.
Have people ever gotten lost using other mapping solutions? Did the Australian police issue statements saying they presented a life threatening issue? If so, I withdraw my statement, otherwise, I stand by it. Frankly, I think they are just caught up in the hysteria, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I don't think anyone can defend Apple over maps BUT I have a hard time believing bad directions could be a life or death situation. At some point wouldn't the driver figure out they're going the way and turn around? And if you were going out to the middle of nowhere wouldn't you make sure you were prepared just in case you got stranded or something?
Unfortunately, some people don't.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/30/3362727/death-by-gps-in-desert.html
Your comment made me think of this story because of something the police officer said:
Quote:
"A lot of people don't realize you should just turn around and go back the way you came."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Sure, you can find errors in Apple's Maps that don't appear on Google Maps and vice versa, but in the few cases where people have done large scale comparisons, Apple comes out looking just as good as Google.
Do you have any references to these "large scale comparisons"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
Lol...so now the Australian police are "behaving irresponsibly"? Even though they have had MULTIPLE instances of people getting themselves into life-threatening situations using a common mapping application, they should just stay quite until they have had a chance to critically evaluate EVERY other mapping application for 'fairness'?
So, you are claiming that no one ever got lost in Australia using any other mapping service?
I'm not dodging the question at, I even gave you another concrete example so you could make the comparison and understand what I'm saying, so I can't really understand how you read that as me avoiding the question. I've already fully explained what I said a number of times: Google Maps did not replace anything; Nokia Maps did not replace anything; so yes they can suck because people had no reason to expect anything from them. Apple Maps DID replace Google Maps, so no, it can not suck any more than Google Maps does, because by replacing Google Maps it essentially accepts the burden of being up to Google Maps' standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul
Hi,
Apple should have rolled out maps to North America subscribers only and undertake some field testing,
And how would that help Australia?
They are viewing it wrong.