I don't get the logic in this: why should Apple fans not use it unless they're idiots? What reason is there to purposely cripple yourself over brand loyalty? Does Apple pay you to be a fan? Because they don't pay me and actually charge me a lot more than the competition, so if I'm really missing something here and there's money to be made, I'd like to learn how! Perhaps then I would understand the generally retarded bias on this forum...
Cheap Android phones aren't the iPhone's "competition", the high end phones Apple compete with are sold at comparable prices, that is until they are dumped in fire sales.
Hint when buying Android handsets wait a couple of months for the inevitable price drop, after the early adopters have been screwed.
Meanwhile enjoy your 480x320 or 800x480 screened, cheap gingerbread phone, like most of the rest of the world.
Nobody needs to; Apple deserves all the criticism since they effectively removed Google Maps from iOS to replace it with their own solution, meaning they are expected to perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere. Apple put themselves in such a position, they only have themselves to blame for it. Google didn't replace anything, they never put themselves in a position that would lead people to expect their solution to be better than anyone else's.
So they should retain the same errors Google maps has?
So they should retain the same errors Google maps has?
His argument is completely warped.
I'd like to hear him argue for IE for Mac over Apple creating Safari. Sure, WebKit is the most popular browser engine now, thanks to Apple, but back when they made the switch it wasn't natively supported by sites and most sites still focused on IE's layout with about 80%(?) marketshare. If his argument holds then Apple shouldn't have ever replaced IE unless it could "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere."
I'd like to hear him argue for IE for Mac over Apple creating Safari. Sure, WebKit is the most popular browser engine now, thanks to Apple, but back when they made the switch it wasn't natively supported by sites and most sites still focused on IE's layout with about 80%(?) marketshare. If his argument holds then Apple shouldn't have ever replaced IE unless it could "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere."
Not a valid comparison.
Any small development group can write a web browser without ever leaving their office. Heck, I've done it myself twice, back in the early 1990s when the web just started.
Creating a Google equivalent mapping solution requires over 7,000 mapping employees and contractors worldwide to collect data, fly planes, drive cars and make corrections, over 250 specially equipped Street View cars, and a fair amount of time.
In other words, it was a lot easier and quicker for Apple to create Safari to replace IE, than to create a Maps solution that could replace Google Maps. Not that Apple didn't try, of course, by buying up various mapping companies to try to speed up the process.
Re: webkit being popular. True enough. Too bad Apple's not likely to make their mapping solution available on other devices. In fact, I think the main reason Google Maps is so good is because Google also has a web version (which Apple does not have). Many people are more likely to submit corrections from a desktop browser than from a mobile browser on the go. If I'd been in charge, I'd have pushed for putting out a desktop version first, either web based or not.
Any small development group can write a web browser without ever leaving their office. Heck, I've done it myself twice, back in the 1990s when the web just started.
Creating a Google equivalent mapping solution requires over 7,000 mapping employees and contractors, over 250 specially equipped Street View cars, and years.
In other words, it was a lot easier and quicker for Apple to create Safari to replace IE, than to create a Maps solution that could replace Google Maps. Not that Apple didn't try, of course, by buying up various mapping companies to try to speed up the process.
That wasn't his argument. He clearly stated "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere." Does Safari perform as well as IE for Mac everywhere? Of course not. As someone who has built browser engines by yourself — or are you just claiming to have built an app around an existing engine? — you should know that you can't make it exactly the same if the backend (in regards to mapping) or the engine (in regards to a browser) is different without an excessive amount of effort. It's only since WebKit has taken hold that we've seen a good deal of uniformity in functionality and layouts for the webpages, and yet there is still much to do and each browser engine still has pros and cons.
That wasn't his argument. He clearly stated "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere." Does Safari perform as well as IE for Mac everywhere? Of course not.
Okay, now I am confused (or perhaps it's the antibiotics I'm on - grin). I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that they didn't have to be as good as the competition at first?
Quote:
As someone who has built browser engines by yourself — or are you just claiming to have built an app around an existing engine? — you should know that you can't make it exactly the same if the backend (in regards to mapping) or the engine (in regards to a browser) is different without an excessive amount of effort.
Ah, I think I see. You're saying the output would not look the same. Yes, of course, I don't mean that the map would look exactly alike, but certainly things like transit information could've been included in Apple's own way.
And yep, I meant browser engines. I'm an old realtime embedded systems guy. I believe in writing your own code for everything, if possible.
Quote:
It's only since WebKit has taken hold that we've seen a good deal of uniformity in functionality and layouts for the webpages, and yet there is still much to do and each browser engine still has pros and cons.
Isn't that the truth. I've been writing HTML based apps since the mid 1990s, and at first we had to stick to one browser just to not go insane. Nowadays it's better, but there sure are a lot of quirks. Plus I'm forced to also support Firefox, which has its own bag of worms.
One common thing I see on Apple sites is people bashing Google for anonymously tracking user behaviors and using that data so advertisers can target people that might actually want their products. Everyone knows that is what Google does. Googles recent offerings have become more sensitive to that and tell users what is being tracked and give you the option to opt out. In the past Google outright bypassed Apple user settings- which is unexcusable and they deserve to be roasted for it.
What I rarely see is anyone mentioning Apples behavior in this regard. Apple tracks far more information about its users than Google can ever hope to find out about its users. Since every app on an iPhone is in their ecosystem Apple knows EVERYTHING you do. What websites you've visited, what you've bought using your phone, who you call and when, where you've been, where you bank, etc etc etc. Apple tracks all this and essentially leaves a permanent cookie on the phone so advertisers can track anonymous information about Apple users. Apple does not deny it is there, and if you search for it you might find it so you can't really accuse Apple of being downright dishonest. At the same time they don't go out of their way to let you know it is there, and it is by default enabled- so rather than telling you it is there and giving you an option to opt out they simply seem to be hoping you don't know it is there and leave it enabled out of ignorance.
All of my friends that use an iPhone 5 have been somewhat incredulous and surprised by this and even more so when I tell them to go to their privacy screens to disable it...
Are they the exception and most of the Apple users here are aware of it and knew to disable it (if they so desired)? Or are most of you surprised to learn this?
Okay, now I am confused (or perhaps it's the antibiotics I'm on - grin). I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that they didn't have to be as good as the competition at first?
I'm saying it's nearly impossible to match or be better than a complex service/app in every regard. That is the where Vaelian's argument is warped. He's claiming that Apple should not have released their own mapping solution until that goal was passed. It's a goal that Apple should strive for but it's not one that it expected to be achieved, and in domes circumstances it may even be impossible.
I drove from Toronto to Buffalo today using Google and TomTom, and returned using Apple Maps and TomTom. Note that I had TomTom on an non-data plan iPad.
Had to turn off data entering the US and within a couple of mile, I lost the Google Map without data, as well as the Apple Map until I reentered Canada and turned data back on.
The TomTom's turn by turn on the other hand continued working perfectly without the data. More importantly, neither Google's or Apple's came anywhere near the simplicity of my TomTom. It too warns me when I am exceeding the speed limit. And with the go-to-picture feature, it is extremely easy to find a student or colleague just by having him/her email a picture of where they are on campus.
The more important question is did you use Homer Simpson or Dark Vader for the voice for turn by turn on the Tom Tom? I know what you mean though, like the Tom Tom (which Apple's data is largely based on) Navigon stores maps off line which is highly useful. You can also do cool things like email people directions which will open up in the app if they have it.
One common thing I see on Apple sites is people bashing Google for anonymously tracking user behaviors and using that data so advertisers can target people that might actually want their products. ...
Many people unfortunately do not have the time to research this stuff themselves, and instead rely on headlines or hearsay... usually heavily biased and paranoid.
Quote:
What I rarely see is anyone mentioning Apples behavior in this regard. Apple tracks far more information about its users than Google can ever hope to find out about its users. Since every app on an iPhone is in their ecosystem Apple knows EVERYTHING you do. What websites you've visited, what you've bought using your phone, who you call and when, where you've been, where you bank, etc etc etc.
No, I don't think Apple tracks our browsing or phone calls or location all day.
However, yes, especially because of iTunes, Apple knows or can guess or can obtain a large amount of info about us. Credit, age, sex. What iOS devices we buy. What kinds of apps we purchase and use the most. Our media purchases and preferences. Of course, our location at the time of ad request.
Apple tells advertisers that they can provide targeted iAd audiences based on at least the following (image from Apple):
Quote:
Apple tracks all this and essentially leaves a permanent cookie on the phone so advertisers can track anonymous information about Apple users.
It's called the IFA (Identifier For Advertisers), a random number assigned to your device. It's new in iOS 6. (Prior to that, iAds used the UDID - the device id, which was a very insecure method, as it made it pretty easy for advertisers and others to get together and figure out who you were. Bad Apple! )
Quote:
All of my friends that use an iPhone 5 have been somewhat incredulous and surprised by this and even more so when I tell them to go to their privacy screens to disable it...
Yes, iOS 6 added a Settings option to turn off targeted ads (*). However, this doesn't actually get rid of the IFA, or stop Apple or others from tracking your interests, like many people think. It simply sets a flag telling an advertising developer that they shouldn't use it to track you for targeted ads. If they're honest, they don't. Yet even if they obey the rules, they have figured out different ways of tracking us. There is, for example, a MAC address database that's being built up for this purpose, which is effectively the same as a UDID. They also have their own flags from their own apps.
The upshot is, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Google or Apple, they're gathering info about us to sell anonymous ad space. This is to pay for the services or app we're using. (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... TANSTAAFL for you Niven fans.)
I think that both are in no way substitute for a pure navigation device. there are many arguments (rely on online data, decent coverage only in some countries, etc). It is also difficult to keep it updated world wide. For instance Nokia app satellite view is not updated since 5years for my town, Google was not able to give directions in South Korea where I work but Apple did and so on. Probably each area/country is better served by an application or other. Nevertheless I've found the "scandal" with Apple maps a little bit exaggerated and all media provided full coverage for some misspelled or wrong located places. On the other hand no media site seems to be aware about the big number of complains against the new iTunes 11 that is far more important for Apple ecosystem than Maps.
I think also that is no big difference between Apple Maps and Google Maps and in short time the differences will became smaller. The thing that make the difference is that many people imagine Google as being the white angel giving everything for free and Apple the evil asking for the big money. If they will use some of their neurons to imagine how it makes Google boys billionaires and how dirty (even if legal) tax practices affect their communities and how they contribute daily to Google associate wealth the way that things are judged will changed also.
Much interesting new detail and viewpoiint. Can you indicate a source for the $2.5 figure? And are you rejecting the standard story that Google wanted too much data from Apple users before they would add TbT and street view to Apple's iOS Maps app, thus forcing Apple to develop their own? Or was it a case of a more general program on Apple's part to cut ties with Google?
Unfortunately, I cannot give a source for the $2.5B figure :-)
Regarding the reasons why Google Maps never got updated on the iPhone, people say a lot of things - like Apple built the app, and Apple was lazy to update it, Google wanted lot of data about users which Apple did not want to give, etc. Denying Turn by turn from the iPhone has nothing to do with collecting info from users. The moment the user enters the Source and Destination, Google obviously has all the information they need from the users. When the app refreshes pages, Google obviously has as much real time location information as it wants. It is impossible to provide a server based mapping solution without getting access to all this information. That was just some misinformation that Google never bothered to deny.
Android is costing Google tremendous amounts of money (whether or not you consider the bottomless pit that is Motorola!). It is costing Google a lot in terms of credibility and goodwill with Regulators, Industry standards associations, etc. It is obviously costing a lot in negative PR. But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible. In 2007, when Apple asked Google to pay $100M to be the default search provider, it really opened Google's eyes to the risk that an unchallenged and massively popular platform like the iPhone could cause. By virtue of controlling this platform, Apple could force Google to pay increasing amounts of money to continue to be the default search provider. And this would hurt Google at its most sensitive spot - at the end of the day, over 90% of Google's revenues comes from advertising tied to search, and Apple could force Google to part with most of its search revenues from the iPhone.
As long as iOS is significant and has a better profile of users, Apple would be able to turn the screws into Google and charge whatever they want for keeping Google as the default search engine. Android absolutely needs to get something close to the kind of domination Windows had, for Google to feel safe. If iOS manages to stay at 30% of the smartphone+tablet market, and retains the higher value customers, that is way too important a chunk of the market for Google to be threatened with.
At this point, the natural question would arise, so what if Google is not the default search provider on iOS? What would Google lose? This is about the entire survival of Google. Back in 2004, Google's search algorithm gave it a massive advantage. And they had a choice, whether to patent the algorithm or not. The trouble with patenting it, was that the entire technical details of the algorithm would have to be disclosed. Google did not want to do this, and therefore decided not to patent, and instead kept the algorithm as a trade secret. The trouble with a secret, is that there is absolutely no legal protection against a secret being revealed, or being copied, or whatever. Over the last 6-8 years, competitors have managed to reverse engineer pretty much the entire secret. And they have been helped by the fact that Google itself has been forced to make a lot of changes to the algorithm, to detect cases where people were gaming the algorithm to get better positioning in the search results. The combination of these two things have meant that Google today does not have any edge whatsoever in terms of its algorithm.
The only edge Google has, stems from two sources - the fact that Google has already made massive investments in servers, storage, bandwidth - and any competitor has to make at least close to this level of investment to even stand a chance of competing with Google. This will not deter the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. The second advantage stems from the fact that Google sees over 75% of all searches - just the sheer volume of these searches allow Google to improve its results. It is this advantage that could be weakened if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.
This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.
While of course there is no such things black and white w.r.t. Google and apple, over the years I really am growing more and more repellent of google. Just like FB they are collecting as much data as possible while making it hard or impossible to control what kind if info is gathered and what is done with it. They lost all sympathy from my end. Only positive aspect is competition causing the need to continuously improve on all sides.
Regarding the maps app I really like apple first attempt and I'm pretty sure it will improve significantly over time.
On the other hand it appears that any hiccup on Apple's side leads to some insipid "-gate"-attempt while others' flaws are merely mentioned in a side note at best.
Apple tracks far more information about its users than Google can ever hope to find out about its users. Since every app on an iPhone is in their ecosystem Apple knows EVERYTHING you do. What websites you've visited, what you've bought using your phone, who you call and when, where you've been, where you bank, etc etc etc. Apple tracks all this and essentially leaves a permanent cookie on the phone so advertisers can track anonymous information about Apple users.
Please provide a source for validation. This is new to me and I don't buy it.
As opposed to google being fined for circumventing privacy settings on safari, collecting wifi data, and their public statements.
Unfortunately, I cannot give a source for the $2.5B figure :-)
Regarding the reasons why Google Maps never got updated on the iPhone, people say a lot of things - Apple built the app, and Apple was lazy to update it, Google wanted lot of data about users which Apple did not want to give, etc. Denying Turn by turn from the iPhone has nothing to do with collecting info from users. The moment the user enters the Source and Destination, Google obviously has all the information they need from the users. When the app refreshes pages, Google obviously has as much real time location information as it wants. It is impossible to provide a server based mapping solution without getting access to all this information. That was just some misinformation that Google never bothered to deny.
Android is costing Google tremendous amounts of money (whether or not you consider the bottomless pit that is Motorola!). It is costing Google a lot in terms of credibility and goodwill with Regulators, Industry standards associations, etc. It is obviously costing a lot in negative PR. But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible. In 2007, when Apple asked Google to pay $100M to be the default search provider, it really opened Google's eyes to the risk that an unchallenged and massively popular platform like the iPhone could cause. By virtue of controlling this platform, Apple could force Google to pay increasing amounts of money to continue to be the default search provider. And this would hurt Google at its most sensitive spot - at the end of the day, over 90% of Google's revenues comes from advertising tied to search, and Apple could force Google to part with most of its search revenues from the iPhone.
As long as iOS is significant and has a better profile of users, Apple would be able to turn the screws into Google and charge whatever they want for keeping Google as the default search engine. Android absolutely needs to get something close to the kind of domination Windows had, for Google to feel safe. If iOS manages to stay at 30% of the smartphone+tablet market, and retains the higher value customers, that is way too important a chunk of the market for Google to be threatened with.
At this point, the natural question would arise, so what if Google is not the default search provider on iOS? What would Google lose? This is about the entire survival of Google. Back in 2004, Google's search algorithm gave it a massive advantage. And they had a choice, whether to patent the algorithm or not. The trouble with patenting it, was that the entire technical details of the algorithm would have to be disclosed. Google did not want to do this, and therefore decided not to patent, and instead kept the algorithm as a trade secret. The trouble with a secret, is that there is absolutely no legal protection against a secret being revealed, or being copied, or whatever. Over the last 6-8 years, competitors have managed to reverse engineer pretty much the entire secret. And they have been helped by the fact that Google itself has been forced to make a lot of changes to the algorithm, to detect cases where people were gaming the algorithm to get better positioning in the search results. The combination of these two things have meant that Google today does not have any edge whatsoever in terms of its algorithm.
The only edge Google has, stems from two sources - the fact that Google has already made massive investments in servers, storage, bandwidth - and any competitor has to make at least close to this level of investment to even stand a chance of competing with Google. This will not deter the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. The second advantage stems from the fact that Google sees over 75% of all searches - just the sheer volume of these searches allow Google to improve its results. It is this advantage that could be weakened if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.
This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.
Okay, everybody ought to read this.
As to your inability to cite a source, I can see why.
A grim scenario, from the point of view of realpolitik, but I'm betting that Tim Cook has not so much interest in Jobs-style TN warfare over Android. I hope. A world without Google would be less interesting. Without IOS, a barren wasteland.
Edit: I hope it's clear that this account has the ring of truth to it, as far as I'm concerned. Which is why no source can be cited—inside info.
You keep saying it makes sense without actually explaining it. Why shouldn't Apple accept Google-branded software? It's not even like there wasn't already Google-branded software in the app store back when Jobs was alive... You really have to justify your belief, because currently it is completely unfound; claiming that it "makes sense" without demonstrating how is irrational.
I'm not talking about the AppStore. I'm talking about a native app that comes with the phone. The original maps app and original youtube app had no Google branding. Fast forward 5 years with Google being one of Apple's major competitors. It's nuts to think Apple would allow a stock app with Google's branding all over it. Of course that doesn't mean Apple would keep Google maps out of the AppStore. There's plenty of competing apps in the AppStore. I use Spotify all the time and have little to no need to buy music off iTunes anymore.
But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible.
... if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.
This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.
I think the entire Android strategy originally had Microsoft in the cross-hairs, not Apple.
Google had spent years building it's reputation on desktop search, beating out some pretty entrenched competitors to get there including a very powerful Microsoft. There's absolutely no doubt Google began planning for search market changes years and years ago, not wanting to be caught unprepared and needing to dig their way up from the bottom again. Buying up Android fit into that planning and pre-dated any Apple partnership talks. (For some background see this link http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal). Apple too was after that mobile user and had no intention of having having the upcoming market surge go right into Microsoft's pocket like the desktop did, with Apple taking the crumbs. The partnership of Google and Apple was one of convenience and shared business interests. They needed each other to make sure Microsoft was as disadvantaged as possible, and neither had the expertise in both services and hardware to do so alone.
In my view Google had no original intent to make Apple a "competitor" and may still not. There was no goal of destroying iOS or creating an enemy. This was all about being the puppeteer rather than the puppet. In the desktop world MS was that puppeteer. Google simply wasn't willing to chance letting Apple make them dance on a string to see success in the fast-rising mobile space too. That's where the partnership soured, which was never a true partnership in the first place. Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. The only way the partnership was going to work was if Google was willing to serve as a major force at Apple's pleasure and under Apple's rules. Long-term that was never going to work out. But it was Apple that made it an almost immediate issue IMO, leaving no doubt that Google was to play by their rules, period. Google showed no aggression towards Apple nor issued any threats (unlike Apple), but at the same time were clear they were their own boss and not beholden to anyone. That wasn't a great match with Steve Jobs personality.
Fortunately for both of them Microsoft was too slow in formulating their own strategy (some might say they still don't have one), at least in part blindsided by how effectively Apple and Google had stormed the castle, one in hardware and the other software. Otherwise things could have looked a lot different than they do now.
So in my opinion Google never saw Apple as an enemy. They had a vision of where they wanted to be, which in some ways overlapped with Apple's own plans and made working alongside Apple attractive for both parties. But unless Google had been willing to put Apple in control of their companies vision it was never going work out long-term. It was almost assured that at some point Google was going to be called an enemy rather than a friend in Mr. Jobs view... and that's the only one that counted to Apple. Google's interests were unimportant. The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. It was never a partnership to Apple. Google was simply a service provider, and would eventually be kicked aside anyway if it was to Apple's benefit.
Anyway, that's the way I see it. With that said,I generally agree that where we are now may match up fairly close to the story of the last 2-3 years you're offered Macarena. That's not how it started out tho. Apple was never the enemy. It was Microsoft that concerned them both. It's just that Google and Apple have different views on how MS could impact their business and how best to blunt those concerns, which in Apple's world makes Google simply another enemy to add to their list.
In addition to Pogue and Siegler, the "third musketeer" has offered some comments on Google Maps for iOS:
_...this new iOS app seems to have all the features I’d want to use. The UI aesthetic is along the lines of Google’s other recent iOS apps (their just plain “Google” search app, and the newly redesigned Gmail app). This aesthetic is quite distinct from the standard iOS look, but it’s unique to Google’s iOS apps...
Google’s brand has always been very friendly, colorful, humane. Their iOS apps have that same feeling..."
"Mapping data aside, I consider Apple’s new Maps the better-designed app, but this new Google Maps is very good."
He also makes this observation:
My “It all worked out” observation was in no way an attempt to argue that this was Apple’s plan all along. In fact, quite the opposite. What makes it remarkable is that it’s all worked out despite clearly not being Apple’s plan. Apple’s plan was for their own mapping service to be, if not as good as Google’s, at least good enough that it didn’t make us miss Google’s map data. I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.
I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.
Well, yeah. When your products get slandered and libeled simply for being made by you, you're pretty mad.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
I don't get the logic in this: why should Apple fans not use it unless they're idiots? What reason is there to purposely cripple yourself over brand loyalty? Does Apple pay you to be a fan? Because they don't pay me and actually charge me a lot more than the competition, so if I'm really missing something here and there's money to be made, I'd like to learn how! Perhaps then I would understand the generally retarded bias on this forum...
Cheap Android phones aren't the iPhone's "competition", the high end phones Apple compete with are sold at comparable prices, that is until they are dumped in fire sales.
Hint when buying Android handsets wait a couple of months for the inevitable price drop, after the early adopters have been screwed.
Meanwhile enjoy your 480x320 or 800x480 screened, cheap gingerbread phone, like most of the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Nobody needs to; Apple deserves all the criticism since they effectively removed Google Maps from iOS to replace it with their own solution, meaning they are expected to perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere. Apple put themselves in such a position, they only have themselves to blame for it. Google didn't replace anything, they never put themselves in a position that would lead people to expect their solution to be better than anyone else's.
So they should retain the same errors Google maps has?
His argument is completely warped.
I'd like to hear him argue for IE for Mac over Apple creating Safari. Sure, WebKit is the most popular browser engine now, thanks to Apple, but back when they made the switch it wasn't natively supported by sites and most sites still focused on IE's layout with about 80%(?) marketshare. If his argument holds then Apple shouldn't have ever replaced IE unless it could "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'd like to hear him argue for IE for Mac over Apple creating Safari. Sure, WebKit is the most popular browser engine now, thanks to Apple, but back when they made the switch it wasn't natively supported by sites and most sites still focused on IE's layout with about 80%(?) marketshare. If his argument holds then Apple shouldn't have ever replaced IE unless it could "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere."
Not a valid comparison.
Any small development group can write a web browser without ever leaving their office. Heck, I've done it myself twice, back in the early 1990s when the web just started.
Creating a Google equivalent mapping solution requires over 7,000 mapping employees and contractors worldwide to collect data, fly planes, drive cars and make corrections, over 250 specially equipped Street View cars, and a fair amount of time.
In other words, it was a lot easier and quicker for Apple to create Safari to replace IE, than to create a Maps solution that could replace Google Maps. Not that Apple didn't try, of course, by buying up various mapping companies to try to speed up the process.
Re: webkit being popular. True enough. Too bad Apple's not likely to make their mapping solution available on other devices. In fact, I think the main reason Google Maps is so good is because Google also has a web version (which Apple does not have). Many people are more likely to submit corrections from a desktop browser than from a mobile browser on the go. If I'd been in charge, I'd have pushed for putting out a desktop version first, either web based or not.
That wasn't his argument. He clearly stated "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere." Does Safari perform as well as IE for Mac everywhere? Of course not. As someone who has built browser engines by yourself — or are you just claiming to have built an app around an existing engine? — you should know that you can't make it exactly the same if the backend (in regards to mapping) or the engine (in regards to a browser) is different without an excessive amount of effort. It's only since WebKit has taken hold that we've seen a good deal of uniformity in functionality and layouts for the webpages, and yet there is still much to do and each browser engine still has pros and cons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That wasn't his argument. He clearly stated "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere." Does Safari perform as well as IE for Mac everywhere? Of course not.
Okay, now I am confused (or perhaps it's the antibiotics I'm on - grin). I'm honestly not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that they didn't have to be as good as the competition at first?
Quote:
As someone who has built browser engines by yourself — or are you just claiming to have built an app around an existing engine? — you should know that you can't make it exactly the same if the backend (in regards to mapping) or the engine (in regards to a browser) is different without an excessive amount of effort.
Ah, I think I see. You're saying the output would not look the same. Yes, of course, I don't mean that the map would look exactly alike, but certainly things like transit information could've been included in Apple's own way.
And yep, I meant browser engines. I'm an old realtime embedded systems guy. I believe in writing your own code for everything, if possible.
Quote:
It's only since WebKit has taken hold that we've seen a good deal of uniformity in functionality and layouts for the webpages, and yet there is still much to do and each browser engine still has pros and cons.
Isn't that the truth. I've been writing HTML based apps since the mid 1990s, and at first we had to stick to one browser just to not go insane. Nowadays it's better, but there sure are a lot of quirks. Plus I'm forced to also support Firefox, which has its own bag of worms.
Cheers!
One common thing I see on Apple sites is people bashing Google for anonymously tracking user behaviors and using that data so advertisers can target people that might actually want their products. Everyone knows that is what Google does. Googles recent offerings have become more sensitive to that and tell users what is being tracked and give you the option to opt out. In the past Google outright bypassed Apple user settings- which is unexcusable and they deserve to be roasted for it.
What I rarely see is anyone mentioning Apples behavior in this regard. Apple tracks far more information about its users than Google can ever hope to find out about its users. Since every app on an iPhone is in their ecosystem Apple knows EVERYTHING you do. What websites you've visited, what you've bought using your phone, who you call and when, where you've been, where you bank, etc etc etc. Apple tracks all this and essentially leaves a permanent cookie on the phone so advertisers can track anonymous information about Apple users. Apple does not deny it is there, and if you search for it you might find it so you can't really accuse Apple of being downright dishonest. At the same time they don't go out of their way to let you know it is there, and it is by default enabled- so rather than telling you it is there and giving you an option to opt out they simply seem to be hoping you don't know it is there and leave it enabled out of ignorance.
All of my friends that use an iPhone 5 have been somewhat incredulous and surprised by this and even more so when I tell them to go to their privacy screens to disable it...
Are they the exception and most of the Apple users here are aware of it and knew to disable it (if they so desired)? Or are most of you surprised to learn this?
I'm saying it's nearly impossible to match or be better than a complex service/app in every regard. That is the where Vaelian's argument is warped. He's claiming that Apple should not have released their own mapping solution until that goal was passed. It's a goal that Apple should strive for but it's not one that it expected to be achieved, and in domes circumstances it may even be impossible.
The more important question is did you use Homer Simpson or Dark Vader for the voice for turn by turn on the Tom Tom? I know what you mean though, like the Tom Tom (which Apple's data is largely based on) Navigon stores maps off line which is highly useful. You can also do cool things like email people directions which will open up in the app if they have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
One common thing I see on Apple sites is people bashing Google for anonymously tracking user behaviors and using that data so advertisers can target people that might actually want their products. ...
Many people unfortunately do not have the time to research this stuff themselves, and instead rely on headlines or hearsay... usually heavily biased and paranoid.
Quote:
What I rarely see is anyone mentioning Apples behavior in this regard. Apple tracks far more information about its users than Google can ever hope to find out about its users. Since every app on an iPhone is in their ecosystem Apple knows EVERYTHING you do. What websites you've visited, what you've bought using your phone, who you call and when, where you've been, where you bank, etc etc etc.
No, I don't think Apple tracks our browsing or phone calls or location all day.
However, yes, especially because of iTunes, Apple knows or can guess or can obtain a large amount of info about us. Credit, age, sex. What iOS devices we buy. What kinds of apps we purchase and use the most. Our media purchases and preferences. Of course, our location at the time of ad request.
Apple tells advertisers that they can provide targeted iAd audiences based on at least the following (image from Apple):
Quote:
Apple tracks all this and essentially leaves a permanent cookie on the phone so advertisers can track anonymous information about Apple users.
It's called the IFA (Identifier For Advertisers), a random number assigned to your device. It's new in iOS 6. (Prior to that, iAds used the UDID - the device id, which was a very insecure method, as it made it pretty easy for advertisers and others to get together and figure out who you were. Bad Apple! )
Quote:
All of my friends that use an iPhone 5 have been somewhat incredulous and surprised by this and even more so when I tell them to go to their privacy screens to disable it...
Yes, iOS 6 added a Settings option to turn off targeted ads (*). However, this doesn't actually get rid of the IFA, or stop Apple or others from tracking your interests, like many people think. It simply sets a flag telling an advertising developer that they shouldn't use it to track you for targeted ads. If they're honest, they don't. Yet even if they obey the rules, they have figured out different ways of tracking us. There is, for example, a MAC address database that's being built up for this purpose, which is effectively the same as a UDID. They also have their own flags from their own apps.
The upshot is, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Google or Apple, they're gathering info about us to sell anonymous ad space. This is to pay for the services or app we're using. (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... TANSTAAFL for you Niven fans.)
(*) For iOS < 6, see this help article: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228
Nevertheless I've found the "scandal" with Apple maps a little bit exaggerated and all media provided full coverage for some misspelled or wrong located places. On the other hand no media site seems to be aware about the big number of complains against the new iTunes 11 that is far more important for Apple ecosystem than Maps.
I think also that is no big difference between Apple Maps and Google Maps and in short time the differences will became smaller. The thing that make the difference is that many people imagine Google as being the white angel giving everything for free and Apple the evil asking for the big money. If they will use some of their neurons to imagine how it makes Google boys billionaires and how dirty (even if legal) tax practices affect their communities and how they contribute daily to Google associate wealth the way that things are judged will changed also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Much interesting new detail and viewpoiint. Can you indicate a source for the $2.5 figure? And are you rejecting the standard story that Google wanted too much data from Apple users before they would add TbT and street view to Apple's iOS Maps app, thus forcing Apple to develop their own? Or was it a case of a more general program on Apple's part to cut ties with Google?
Unfortunately, I cannot give a source for the $2.5B figure :-)
Regarding the reasons why Google Maps never got updated on the iPhone, people say a lot of things - like Apple built the app, and Apple was lazy to update it, Google wanted lot of data about users which Apple did not want to give, etc. Denying Turn by turn from the iPhone has nothing to do with collecting info from users. The moment the user enters the Source and Destination, Google obviously has all the information they need from the users. When the app refreshes pages, Google obviously has as much real time location information as it wants. It is impossible to provide a server based mapping solution without getting access to all this information. That was just some misinformation that Google never bothered to deny.
Android is costing Google tremendous amounts of money (whether or not you consider the bottomless pit that is Motorola!). It is costing Google a lot in terms of credibility and goodwill with Regulators, Industry standards associations, etc. It is obviously costing a lot in negative PR. But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible. In 2007, when Apple asked Google to pay $100M to be the default search provider, it really opened Google's eyes to the risk that an unchallenged and massively popular platform like the iPhone could cause. By virtue of controlling this platform, Apple could force Google to pay increasing amounts of money to continue to be the default search provider. And this would hurt Google at its most sensitive spot - at the end of the day, over 90% of Google's revenues comes from advertising tied to search, and Apple could force Google to part with most of its search revenues from the iPhone.
As long as iOS is significant and has a better profile of users, Apple would be able to turn the screws into Google and charge whatever they want for keeping Google as the default search engine. Android absolutely needs to get something close to the kind of domination Windows had, for Google to feel safe. If iOS manages to stay at 30% of the smartphone+tablet market, and retains the higher value customers, that is way too important a chunk of the market for Google to be threatened with.
At this point, the natural question would arise, so what if Google is not the default search provider on iOS? What would Google lose? This is about the entire survival of Google. Back in 2004, Google's search algorithm gave it a massive advantage. And they had a choice, whether to patent the algorithm or not. The trouble with patenting it, was that the entire technical details of the algorithm would have to be disclosed. Google did not want to do this, and therefore decided not to patent, and instead kept the algorithm as a trade secret. The trouble with a secret, is that there is absolutely no legal protection against a secret being revealed, or being copied, or whatever. Over the last 6-8 years, competitors have managed to reverse engineer pretty much the entire secret. And they have been helped by the fact that Google itself has been forced to make a lot of changes to the algorithm, to detect cases where people were gaming the algorithm to get better positioning in the search results. The combination of these two things have meant that Google today does not have any edge whatsoever in terms of its algorithm.
The only edge Google has, stems from two sources - the fact that Google has already made massive investments in servers, storage, bandwidth - and any competitor has to make at least close to this level of investment to even stand a chance of competing with Google. This will not deter the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. The second advantage stems from the fact that Google sees over 75% of all searches - just the sheer volume of these searches allow Google to improve its results. It is this advantage that could be weakened if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.
This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.
Regarding the maps app I really like apple first attempt and I'm pretty sure it will improve significantly over time.
On the other hand it appears that any hiccup on Apple's side leads to some insipid "-gate"-attempt while others' flaws are merely mentioned in a side note at best.
Please provide a source for validation. This is new to me and I don't buy it.
As opposed to google being fined for circumventing privacy settings on safari, collecting wifi data, and their public statements.
Enough said. [URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html[/URL]
Okay, everybody ought to read this.
As to your inability to cite a source, I can see why.
A grim scenario, from the point of view of realpolitik, but I'm betting that Tim Cook has not so much interest in Jobs-style TN warfare over Android. I hope. A world without Google would be less interesting. Without IOS, a barren wasteland.
Edit: I hope it's clear that this account has the ring of truth to it, as far as I'm concerned. Which is why no source can be cited—inside info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena
But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible.
... if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.
This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.
I think the entire Android strategy originally had Microsoft in the cross-hairs, not Apple.
Google had spent years building it's reputation on desktop search, beating out some pretty entrenched competitors to get there including a very powerful Microsoft. There's absolutely no doubt Google began planning for search market changes years and years ago, not wanting to be caught unprepared and needing to dig their way up from the bottom again. Buying up Android fit into that planning and pre-dated any Apple partnership talks. (For some background see this link http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal). Apple too was after that mobile user and had no intention of having having the upcoming market surge go right into Microsoft's pocket like the desktop did, with Apple taking the crumbs. The partnership of Google and Apple was one of convenience and shared business interests. They needed each other to make sure Microsoft was as disadvantaged as possible, and neither had the expertise in both services and hardware to do so alone.
In my view Google had no original intent to make Apple a "competitor" and may still not. There was no goal of destroying iOS or creating an enemy. This was all about being the puppeteer rather than the puppet. In the desktop world MS was that puppeteer. Google simply wasn't willing to chance letting Apple make them dance on a string to see success in the fast-rising mobile space too. That's where the partnership soured, which was never a true partnership in the first place. Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. The only way the partnership was going to work was if Google was willing to serve as a major force at Apple's pleasure and under Apple's rules. Long-term that was never going to work out. But it was Apple that made it an almost immediate issue IMO, leaving no doubt that Google was to play by their rules, period. Google showed no aggression towards Apple nor issued any threats (unlike Apple), but at the same time were clear they were their own boss and not beholden to anyone. That wasn't a great match with Steve Jobs personality.
Fortunately for both of them Microsoft was too slow in formulating their own strategy (some might say they still don't have one), at least in part blindsided by how effectively Apple and Google had stormed the castle, one in hardware and the other software. Otherwise things could have looked a lot different than they do now.
So in my opinion Google never saw Apple as an enemy. They had a vision of where they wanted to be, which in some ways overlapped with Apple's own plans and made working alongside Apple attractive for both parties. But unless Google had been willing to put Apple in control of their companies vision it was never going work out long-term. It was almost assured that at some point Google was going to be called an enemy rather than a friend in Mr. Jobs view... and that's the only one that counted to Apple. Google's interests were unimportant. The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. It was never a partnership to Apple. Google was simply a service provider, and would eventually be kicked aside anyway if it was to Apple's benefit.
Anyway, that's the way I see it. With that said,I generally agree that where we are now may match up fairly close to the story of the last 2-3 years you're offered Macarena. That's not how it started out tho. Apple was never the enemy. It was Microsoft that concerned them both. It's just that Google and Apple have different views on how MS could impact their business and how best to blunt those concerns, which in Apple's world makes Google simply another enemy to add to their list.
In addition to Pogue and Siegler, the "third musketeer" has offered some comments on Google Maps for iOS:
_...this new iOS app seems to have all the features I’d want to use. The UI aesthetic is along the lines of Google’s other recent iOS apps (their just plain “Google” search app, and the newly redesigned Gmail app). This aesthetic is quite distinct from the standard iOS look, but it’s unique to Google’s iOS apps...
Google’s brand has always been very friendly, colorful, humane. Their iOS apps have that same feeling..."
"Mapping data aside, I consider Apple’s new Maps the better-designed app, but this new Google Maps is very good."
He also makes this observation:
My “It all worked out” observation was in no way an attempt to argue that this was Apple’s plan all along. In fact, quite the opposite. What makes it remarkable is that it’s all worked out despite clearly not being Apple’s plan. Apple’s plan was for their own mapping service to be, if not as good as Google’s, at least good enough that it didn’t make us miss Google’s map data. I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.
http://daringfireball.net/2012/12/google_maps_iphone
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.
Well, yeah. When your products get slandered and libeled simply for being made by you, you're pretty mad.