And I demonstrated that the link you provided did not back up your claims and even mentioned some cases where Google maps is better (like the search), thus refuting your point.
Given that the link did not declare Google Maps better, not even in search (Google Maps more likely to return a search result but search result more likely to be nonsense hardly qualifies as better.) it's hard to see how you refuted anything, especially when you weren't talking about the quality of the mapping data, but just a feature comparison. Oh, right, you said it refutes it, I get it.
Prove that no one knew. So far, the only one who seems to be confused is you... I even asked, several times, exactly what it was that you were not understanding, and you never replied to my questions, implying that you actually understood, which I am now interpreting as a reaction of shame.
Fact: Instead of turning around and going back the way they came, they left their vehicle and wandered around for 24 hours.
Fact: There are signs that you are entering a national park.
Fact: It is entirely implausible that there was NO warning that they weren't going to get where they were going.
Fact: There are other examples posted earlier in this thread where other navigation systems have created problems (including at least some deaths). No one ever said that Apple Maps was perfect, but neither is any other navigation system out there.
Fact: The problem didn't come up for the months after Apple Maps was released - and then suddenly "a number of people" are all affected at once.
Sounds to me like:
a. Australia suddenly gave drivers' licenses to some intensely stupid people.
or
b. The entire thing was orchestrated.
Wondering Around: I'll give you that one. I have no idea why they would wonder around. Only thought is that they might have run out of gas.
Signs: If you go under the assumption they are tourists, what makes you believe that crossing through a park wasn't part of the route? Espeically if the route on their trusted device is saying to go through it. I make this assumption because local people would know that's not the way and would not have gone that way to begin with.
Other Devices: But the motorists weren't using "other navigation devices", now were they?
Timing: That is a good question. Maybe most people figured it out, but as said, there are plenty of stupid people in the world. Usually trends take a while before the police issue statements.
Sounds to me like:
A. Australia does have stupid people (welcome to the rest of the world?)
B. Motorists unfamiliar with the area used Apple Maps and got lost
C. The whole thing was orchestrated alright. In your head. *cue tin foil hat music*
I find nothing irrational about making a statement in the interest of public safety after MULTIPLE recurring instances. In my opinion, you simply come across as an Apple apologist that is sour grapes because it happened to be iOS Maps that was the offending application.
Well, no. Proper response would have been for the police to tell people not to rely on GPS without thinking (as the police did in the Death Vally case). When the police single out Apple Maps, it sends an implied message that other mapping solutions are foolproof - which is not the case.
Proper response: "do not rely on any GPS solution. Make sure you are prepared with water and supplies. And if you get lost, either stay where you are until help arrives or turn around and retrace your path"
Wait wait wait. So your excuse for this is "Well people have gotten lost using our competitors' products. So there's no need to address issues with our products that could lead to disasterous results."
I'm just curious where you came up with that. Who ever said that Apple shouldn't improve their product?
When folk follow a generic GPS without thinking, we call them idiots.
When folk follow the Maps app without thinking, Cupertino is 'endangering lives'.
Are you familiar with the Tumblr site that was made after Apple Maps came out? It's pretty much an endless collection of user-submitted screenshots of all kinds of mistakes in Apple Maps. If that isn't "evidence", I don't know what is.
Don't blame us that you never took a critical thinking course and don't know what evidence is.
Here, I'll repeat it for you:
1. There are errors in Apple Maps. That is indisputable. The number has not been defined.
2. There are errors in Google Maps. That is indisputable. The number has not been defined.
Now, unless you have evidence that the number in (1) is greater than the number in (2), then your repeated claim that Apple Maps is worse than Google Maps is false.
Simply saying "there are lots of errors in Apple Maps" does not prove that. Simply saying "some of the errors in Apple Maps are things that Google Maps got right" does not prove it. You need to be able to show that the number of errors in Apple Maps is greater than the number of errors in Google Maps for your argument to be correct. So where is the evidence supporting that claim?
So, if you're going to continue to claim that Apple Maps is worse than Google Maps, you must be able to show that #1 is greater than #2. So where is the evidence of that?
Given that the link did not declare Google Maps better, not even in search (Google Maps more likely to return a search result but search result more likely to be nonsense hardly qualifies as better.)
That's not given, and you also seem to lack reading comprehension (which does not surprise me anymore, as you can guess by my previous replies to you). What the article that you linked to says is the following:
Google always returns a result, while Apple only seems to return results when they are a precise match, possibly explaining why the latter’s data appears to be less complete
This doesn't mean Google returns crap; what it means is that Google understands what you want better. I even gave an example of such a case in this thread when I mentioned the problems I have with Apple Maps not recognizing characters such as 'a', 'á', 'à', and 'ã' as representing the same letter in searches.
Given that the link did not declare Google Maps better, not even in search (Google Maps more likely to return a search result but search result more likely to be nonsense hardly qualifies as better.) it's hard to see how you refuted anything, especially when you weren't talking about the quality of the mapping data, but just a feature comparison. Oh, right, you said it refutes it, I get it.
You're forgetting that Vaelian has some magic logic powers. Earlier in this thread, for example, he told me that he had already refuted every argument I had ever made as well as any argument I would ever make in the future.
It's amazing how someone like that with no concept of what logic entails can post so many posts full of drivel.
That's not given, and you also seem to lack reading comprehension (which does not surprise me anymore, as you can guess by my previous replies to you). What the article that you linked to says is the following:
This doesn't mean Google returns crap; what it means is that Google understand what you want better. I even gave an example of such a case in this thread when I mentioned the problems I have with Apple Maps not recognizing that characters such as 'a', 'á', 'à', and 'ã' as representing the same letter in searches.
Once again:
1. There are errors in Apple Maps. That is indisputable. The number has not been defined.
2. There are errors in Google Maps. That is indisputable. The number has not been defined.
Now, unless you have evidence that the number in (1) is greater than the number in (2), then your repeated claim that Apple Maps is worse than Google Maps is false.
Simply saying "there are lots of errors in Apple Maps" does not prove that. Simply saying "some of the errors in Apple Maps are things that Google Maps got right" does not prove it. You need to be able to show that the number of errors in Apple Maps is greater than the number of errors in Google Maps for your argument to be correct. So where is the evidence supporting that claim?
So please show us the evidence that #1 is greater than #2. You keep insisting on the claim that Apple Maps is worse, so you must have evidence to prove that #1 is greater than #2. So where is it? The article you cited didn't support that claim (and was only very limited, anyway).
You're forgetting that Vaelian has some magic logic powers. Earlier in this thread, for example, he told me that he had already refuted every argument I had ever made as well as any argument I would ever make in the future.
That's red herring. Also, I don't have a magical logic, but you were beating a dead horse.
You're forgetting that Vaelian has some magic logic powers. Earlier in this thread, for example, he told me that he had already refuted every argument I had ever made as well as any argument I would ever make in the future.
It's amazing how someone like that with no concept of what logic entails can post so many posts full of drivel.
Those "magic logic powers" are basically (1) claiming everyone else is irrational, (2) claiming everyone has already been 'refuted' by magic logic, and (3) using a double standard and justifying it with another double standard.
That's not given, and you also seem to lack reading comprehension (which does not surprise me anymore, as you can guess by my previous replies to you). What the article that you linked to says is the following:
This doesn't mean Google returns crap; what it means is that Google understands what you want better. I even gave an example of such a case in this thread when I mentioned the problems I have with Apple Maps not recognizing characters such as 'a', 'á', 'à', and 'ã' as representing the same letter in searches.
The article says several other things as well, for example,
Quote:
On the surface, iOS 6 (Excel file) fares much worse, with only 65 percent of matches being reported in Ontario, and a large number of searches—a whopping 37 percent—returning no results at all.
This, however, doesn’t tell the whole story. If we look at the standard deviation in the sets of results that both engines identify as being in Ontario, there’s a very juicy bit of information to be had: Google’s is 221, while Apple’s is only 78—and the Apple results are top-heavy, with only a very tiny minority of locations reported as being far off the intended mark.
This is very important, because it confirms what I mentioned above: That Google will return a result, any result, no matter how far fetched. Thus, some of the locations it returns are hundreds or thousands of kilometers off target.
Apple, on the other hand, seems to be going for accuracy: either it returns a result that is spot-on, or it returns nothing.
You may feel that any result is better than no result, however, I'll take accuracy over nonsense any day. Now who's having trouble with reading comprehension? Or did you ignore that because it didn't support your argument?
So please show us the evidence that #1 is greater than #2. You keep insisting on the claim that Apple Maps is worse, so you must have evidence to prove that #1 is greater than #2. So where is it? The article you cited didn't support that claim (and was only very limited, anyway).
Apple Maps is worse as a replacement -- that's my claim, and that's already been proven. What matters in a replacement is that the replacement part match all the properties of the replaced part. Whether the replacement part has more properties is irrelevant because those properties are not replacing anything and thus are not expected, but if it has less properties, then it's worse than the original part. The reason for this, as I have explained a number of times throughout the thread, is because when you replace something, the replacement is expected to do everything that the original part did. People complain because their expectations were not met when they were promised better, not just different. You may choose to not understand this if you like, but denying reality won't get you anywhere, so you may as well accept human nature as it is.
You're forgetting that Vaelian has some magic logic powers. Earlier in this thread, for example, he told me that he had already refuted every argument I had ever made as well as any argument I would ever make in the future.
It's amazing how someone like that with no concept of what logic entails can post so many posts full of drivel.
Yes, I've encountered his magic logic powers before, when he claimed that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy, well, sometimes, because it's used in a straw man argument, except when it isn't...
Apple Maps is worse as a replacement -- that's my claim, and that's already been proven.
Really? Where was that proven? In the same post where you claimed to have magically refuted any future arguments I might make?
Once again, I'll repeat it:
1. There are errors in Apple Maps. That is indisputable. The number has not been defined.
2. There are errors in Google Maps. That is indisputable. The number has not been defined.
Now, unless you have evidence that the number in (1) is greater than the number in (2), then your repeated claim that Apple Maps is worse than Google Maps is false.
Simply saying "there are lots of errors in Apple Maps" does not prove that. Simply saying "some of the errors in Apple Maps are things that Google Maps got right" does not prove it. You need to be able to show that the number of errors in Apple Maps is greater than the number of errors in Google Maps for your argument to be correct. So where is the evidence supporting that claim?
So, where is the proof that the total number of errors in Apple Maps is greater than the total number of errors in Google Maps? (Hint: the article you cited doesn't make that claim - they state that the number of errors is the same, but Apple fails in a different way. Furthermore, one province in Canada is not the rest of the world. You are making a claim that Apple Maps is worse. Period. So you must have global data on the numbers for #1 and #2 above.).
You may feel that any result is better than no result, however, I'll take accuracy over nonsense any day. Now who's having trouble with reading comprehension? Or did you ignore that because it didn't support your argument?
You acknowledge that in that case it is down to a question of subjectivity (which I disagree, but that doesn't matter); you also claim that that article provides an objective comparison between both engines; and it just happens that subjective objectivism is an oxymoron. thus refuting your claim about the article's objectivity. So back to stage one with you! Provide a definition for "objective"!
So, where is the proof that the total number of errors in Apple Maps is greater than the total number of errors in Google Maps?
Why would that be required to validate my argument? Simply demonstrating that Apple Maps lacks services that Google Maps provides is enough to make it an unsuitable replacement. If a feature goes missing, that's a downgrade.
You acknowledge that in that case it is down to a question of subjectivity (which I disagree, but that doesn't matter); you also claim that that article provides an objective comparison between both engines; and it just happens that subjective objectivism is an oxymoron. thus refuting your claim about the article's objectivity. So back to stage one with you! Provide a definition for "objective"!
That was my subjective comparison, not the article's, Mr. Magic Logic Powers.
And I don't even use these things normally, but he's too funny.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
And I demonstrated that the link you provided did not back up your claims and even mentioned some cases where Google maps is better (like the search), thus refuting your point.
Given that the link did not declare Google Maps better, not even in search (Google Maps more likely to return a search result but search result more likely to be nonsense hardly qualifies as better.) it's hard to see how you refuted anything, especially when you weren't talking about the quality of the mapping data, but just a feature comparison. Oh, right, you said it refutes it, I get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Prove that no one knew. So far, the only one who seems to be confused is you... I even asked, several times, exactly what it was that you were not understanding, and you never replied to my questions, implying that you actually understood, which I am now interpreting as a reaction of shame.
Now you've stooped to rewriting history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Fact: Instead of turning around and going back the way they came, they left their vehicle and wandered around for 24 hours.
Fact: There are signs that you are entering a national park.
Fact: It is entirely implausible that there was NO warning that they weren't going to get where they were going.
Fact: There are other examples posted earlier in this thread where other navigation systems have created problems (including at least some deaths). No one ever said that Apple Maps was perfect, but neither is any other navigation system out there.
Fact: The problem didn't come up for the months after Apple Maps was released - and then suddenly "a number of people" are all affected at once.
Sounds to me like:
a. Australia suddenly gave drivers' licenses to some intensely stupid people.
or
b. The entire thing was orchestrated.
Wondering Around: I'll give you that one. I have no idea why they would wonder around. Only thought is that they might have run out of gas.
Signs: If you go under the assumption they are tourists, what makes you believe that crossing through a park wasn't part of the route? Espeically if the route on their trusted device is saying to go through it. I make this assumption because local people would know that's not the way and would not have gone that way to begin with.
Other Devices: But the motorists weren't using "other navigation devices", now were they?
Timing: That is a good question. Maybe most people figured it out, but as said, there are plenty of stupid people in the world. Usually trends take a while before the police issue statements.
Sounds to me like:
A. Australia does have stupid people (welcome to the rest of the world?)
B. Motorists unfamiliar with the area used Apple Maps and got lost
C. The whole thing was orchestrated alright. In your head. *cue tin foil hat music*
Well, no. Proper response would have been for the police to tell people not to rely on GPS without thinking (as the police did in the Death Vally case). When the police single out Apple Maps, it sends an implied message that other mapping solutions are foolproof - which is not the case.
Proper response: "do not rely on any GPS solution. Make sure you are prepared with water and supplies. And if you get lost, either stay where you are until help arrives or turn around and retrace your path"
Improper response: "Apple Maps is dangerous".
I'm just curious where you came up with that. Who ever said that Apple shouldn't improve their product?
Please stop with the straw man arguments.
Exactly.
Don't blame us that you never took a critical thinking course and don't know what evidence is.
Here, I'll repeat it for you:
So, if you're going to continue to claim that Apple Maps is worse than Google Maps, you must be able to show that #1 is greater than #2. So where is the evidence of that?
That's not given, and you also seem to lack reading comprehension (which does not surprise me anymore, as you can guess by my previous replies to you). What the article that you linked to says is the following:
This doesn't mean Google returns crap; what it means is that Google understands what you want better. I even gave an example of such a case in this thread when I mentioned the problems I have with Apple Maps not recognizing characters such as 'a', 'á', 'à', and 'ã' as representing the same letter in searches.
You're forgetting that Vaelian has some magic logic powers. Earlier in this thread, for example, he told me that he had already refuted every argument I had ever made as well as any argument I would ever make in the future.
It's amazing how someone like that with no concept of what logic entails can post so many posts full of drivel.
Once again:
So please show us the evidence that #1 is greater than #2. You keep insisting on the claim that Apple Maps is worse, so you must have evidence to prove that #1 is greater than #2. So where is it? The article you cited didn't support that claim (and was only very limited, anyway).
That's red herring. Also, I don't have a magical logic, but you were beating a dead horse.
It's amazing how logically sound people such as you seem completely incapable of proving me wrong...
Those "magic logic powers" are basically (1) claiming everyone else is irrational, (2) claiming everyone has already been 'refuted' by magic logic, and (3) using a double standard and justifying it with another double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
That's not given, and you also seem to lack reading comprehension (which does not surprise me anymore, as you can guess by my previous replies to you). What the article that you linked to says is the following:
This doesn't mean Google returns crap; what it means is that Google understands what you want better. I even gave an example of such a case in this thread when I mentioned the problems I have with Apple Maps not recognizing characters such as 'a', 'á', 'à', and 'ã' as representing the same letter in searches.
The article says several other things as well, for example,
Quote:
On the surface, iOS 6 (Excel file) fares much worse, with only 65 percent of matches being reported in Ontario, and a large number of searches—a whopping 37 percent—returning no results at all.
This, however, doesn’t tell the whole story. If we look at the standard deviation in the sets of results that both engines identify as being in Ontario, there’s a very juicy bit of information to be had: Google’s is 221, while Apple’s is only 78—and the Apple results are top-heavy, with only a very tiny minority of locations reported as being far off the intended mark.
This is very important, because it confirms what I mentioned above: That Google will return a result, any result, no matter how far fetched. Thus, some of the locations it returns are hundreds or thousands of kilometers off target.
Apple, on the other hand, seems to be going for accuracy: either it returns a result that is spot-on, or it returns nothing.
You may feel that any result is better than no result, however, I'll take accuracy over nonsense any day. Now who's having trouble with reading comprehension? Or did you ignore that because it didn't support your argument?
Apple Maps is worse as a replacement -- that's my claim, and that's already been proven. What matters in a replacement is that the replacement part match all the properties of the replaced part. Whether the replacement part has more properties is irrelevant because those properties are not replacing anything and thus are not expected, but if it has less properties, then it's worse than the original part. The reason for this, as I have explained a number of times throughout the thread, is because when you replace something, the replacement is expected to do everything that the original part did. People complain because their expectations were not met when they were promised better, not just different. You may choose to not understand this if you like, but denying reality won't get you anywhere, so you may as well accept human nature as it is.
What's that got to do with your claim that you had already refuted any future arguments I might make?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're forgetting that Vaelian has some magic logic powers. Earlier in this thread, for example, he told me that he had already refuted every argument I had ever made as well as any argument I would ever make in the future.
It's amazing how someone like that with no concept of what logic entails can post so many posts full of drivel.
Yes, I've encountered his magic logic powers before, when he claimed that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy, well, sometimes, because it's used in a straw man argument, except when it isn't...
Really? Where was that proven? In the same post where you claimed to have magically refuted any future arguments I might make?
Once again, I'll repeat it:
So, where is the proof that the total number of errors in Apple Maps is greater than the total number of errors in Google Maps? (Hint: the article you cited doesn't make that claim - they state that the number of errors is the same, but Apple fails in a different way. Furthermore, one province in Canada is not the rest of the world. You are making a claim that Apple Maps is worse. Period. So you must have global data on the numbers for #1 and #2 above.).
Still waiting for that proof.
At the risk of continuing the pissing contest...
But, with the potential of ending it...
Here's a famous landmark of a once-powerful government and its infamous leader:
Now, with Google Maps...
Note: Because it is in the middle of the river -- I suppose Street View is NA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN
Are these fools trying for a Darwin Award or something
Yep, this is mother nature at work - evolutionary pressure is still high...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Here's a famous landmark of a once-powerful government and its infamous leader
First time someone is describing Frederick William II. of Prussia as infamous
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Note: Because it is in the middle of the river -- I suppose Street View is NA!
That brings up an interesting point: do they have Street View in Venice?
*crickets*
You acknowledge that in that case it is down to a question of subjectivity (which I disagree, but that doesn't matter); you also claim that that article provides an objective comparison between both engines; and it just happens that subjective objectivism is an oxymoron. thus refuting your claim about the article's objectivity. So back to stage one with you! Provide a definition for "objective"!
When I mentioned that it lacks a feature similar to Google Street View.
Why would that be required to validate my argument? Simply demonstrating that Apple Maps lacks services that Google Maps provides is enough to make it an unsuitable replacement. If a feature goes missing, that's a downgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
You acknowledge that in that case it is down to a question of subjectivity (which I disagree, but that doesn't matter); you also claim that that article provides an objective comparison between both engines; and it just happens that subjective objectivism is an oxymoron. thus refuting your claim about the article's objectivity. So back to stage one with you! Provide a definition for "objective"!
That was my subjective comparison, not the article's, Mr. Magic Logic Powers.