This is all very interesting and shows that Apple have done way better than many of us imagined. Given that though, a missing point from this article, and it's a fundamental one, is that Flyover covers a tiny percentage of the area covered by Google Street View. For those of us who a) Don't live in the USA and b) Don't live in, or plan to travel to, a city then Street View wins every time.
Agreed. It's hard to take the article seriously when this isn't mentioned. A year after Flyover and major markets in the USA still don't have it. Are they still mapping new cities or is Flyover dead?
Agreed. It's hard to take the article seriously when this isn't mentioned. A year after Flyover and major markets in the USA still don't have it. Are they still mapping new cities or is Flyover dead?
Apple maps is nice, but it still doesn't do things as well as google maps sometimes. There's still work to be done. Its getting there, but its not quite there yet. There are still places that are in wrong spots, so it gives incorrect directions. I do like the interface of Apple maps better though.
Google street view still run circles around apple 3d maps in terms of coverage. For something that is scan with planes, Apple did not do much considering its much faster than doing it with cars.
While Apple also added 3D building massing models of its own to iOS Maps in Standard mode (above), it additionally enabled users to take Satellite maps into the modeled 3D perspective mode Apple referred to as Flyover...
Flyover is not composed of satellite views. It's made by flying over a city with an airplane.
I think the criticism against Apple for warped 3D is unfair. It's a standard artifact of Photogrammetry and algorithmic techniques to detect things like bridges, trees, and other structures only goes so far and needs to be aided by human labor. The world is very large, so it cannot be expected that all of these would be fixed in short order.
On the other hand, Apple attracted some of the criticism on itself by focusing so much on the 3D aspect. It's a style-over-substance gimmick, not a competitive differentiator.
Agreed, and the Hoover Dam picture was little unfair and became the 'poster child' for what was wrong with Apple maps. The real problem had nothing to do with the warped picture though. The majority of people unhappy with maps were the Apple users themselves. Yes, the Android pundits simply sat back, cracked a beer, and laughed- which didn't help things any.
Apple maps looked pretty, they just didn't have a lot of the information competitors had and didn't *work* as well. That would have all been fine if Apple had simply released maps and given users a choice of picking which solution worked for them. In that case Apple maps wouldn't have been as famously criticized, they simply would have been largely unused until they came up to speed. The real problem was Apple tried to pull a fast one and pull the rug out from under Google by forcing Apple users to use Apple maps. They made Apple maps the default, did not give Google a 'heads up' and wait for any alternatives to be ready. Apple users were clearly not happy at all, and when released Google maps became the number 1 download on the App store. Apple violated its own golden rule and instead of famously focusing on user experience, they forced a product on its users that many felt were focusing more on whats good for Apple Inc. rather than what was good for Apple users.
I like Apple maps even though I can't use it. The pictures are certainly pretty, the functionality is improving. The author saying it is better because he really really wishes it were so doesn't make it truth- but I love the pace at which Apple maps is improving and the resulting competition driving improvements on all sides.
Not a 3D issue, but one annoying feature of Apple Maps is that it doesn't tell you where you are in some places unless you drop a pin. The village in which I live has "no name" in Apple Maps, though it does in Google's. I have to drop a pin to find the name of the village. This even happens in some sizeable towns near me and that makes it quite hard to navigate around a map when you don't actually know the towns that you can see displayed.
That's part of a larger problem that affects most mapping software to one degree or another, which is that when you zoom out enough to get some perspective on your location, the labels that provide essential specifics disappear. This is particularly annoying when the street names vanish, as happens all too often. Now you know where you are with respect to the world at large, but you may have no idea what the next cross-street is. I feel that there should be something like a user-controlled slider that would set the level of detail displayed, independent of zoom level.
However the 3D display is no more than a thin layer of icing on a cake of highly variable quality. Until Apple fixes Maps' underlying problems, such as ongoing location errors, scant POI's and large scale failure to implement user-supplied corrections, 3D display remains nothing more than a pointless distraction.
Trying to equate aerial views with street views is silly. They have different purposes, depending on where you live.
For modern maps, there's a need to include data from multiple sources: satellite, aerial, street, and interior. The latter collection is just starting.
-- Street View
Here in the Northeast US, street level views are very useful.
I use Street View all the time to preview a new destination. I can check what kind of buildings to expect (family / office) and where building / parking entrances are (especially important in NYC).
For my wife, I often preview the major street intersections.with her, so she'll be familiar with the signs. Again, a peculiarity of living in NJ and NY perhaps, but very useful along with GPS as an aid.
-- Web Support
Google Maps are accessibly by native apps or web browser. As an HTML5 developer, the AJAX APIs are very handy to create custom overlays.
I think it'd be great if Apple did like Microsoft and Google, and offer a web version of their Maps. This would also likely prompt more public feedback like Google gets.
The 3D view is nice for showing off, but it really doesn't have the utility of street level photos. For example, often when I am taking a road trip, I will "drive" the route near the final destination inside of street view in order to visually memorize the landmarks I need to recognize...
...What Apple ought to worry about is Google doing Photogrammetry on Street View level data to extract true 3D Street Views. This would make Street View work almost like a 3D game, provide data for augmented reality, and is not something that Apple can easily duplicate (unlike 3D mapping cities, which you can do by renting overflights with special cameras that do thousands of square miles at a time) without setting up its own fleet of cars to drive through the world's cities.
Your comments about photogrammetry are amusing. The paneling markers themselves would be a huge (and might I say expensive) job involving not only common plane surveying but taking into account the curvature of the earth. There is also the minor problem of foliage and inaccessible terrain. These special cameras do not get the kind of resolution you want while trying to get "thousands of square miles at a time".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
BTW, Google Maps beta with Earth is not limited to four directions. Hold down the Ctrl key while dragging with the left mouse and you can pan in 3D at any angle.
Interesting but my phone does not yet have a Ctrl key or left mouse.. LOL. I am interested in navigation solutions that are available for use in my car and then easily taken to the train, bus, etc. from where I might walk. I can't see any of this with a laptop and certainly not a phone.
I think your screenshots on Page 1 show exactly why I still prefer Google Maps for daily navigation. Being able to see roads and other geometry through the building wireframes on map view is extremely helpful for finding where things are and the best way to get from a-to-b.
Secondly, they have building 3D focus-centric building blueprints on the straight-up vertical view as well. This is also very helpful for biking, walking, driving, or in my case, rollerblading.
Apple's flyover is a nice looking feature they've put together; but before I switch to it they need to work on the 3D blueprint models. Their points of interest searches could use some improvements as well.
Anyone else here like the 3D translucent blueprints of GMaps more than Flyover, or is it just me here?
Was another article really needed? Yes. It was really needed. Why was another article really needed? Because the competitors paid for ten times this press, in lies, when the software was launched. Someone has to fight back.
Apple Maps has come a long way and there's no doubt it's visually stunning. However, I find it's still not dependable as a daily map application due to it's inability to correctly locate addresses, businesses, etc. I'm hopeful that Apple has a roadmap to fix those issues.
It's been what, a year? and Apple Maps has already come this far.
All of this in a year, against a competitor that apparently specializes in this sort of thing, and Apple is apparently putting them to school in a number of areas within this service.
"The 3D view is nice for showing off, but it really doesn't have the utility of street level photos. For example, often when I am taking a road trip, I will "drive" the route near the final destination inside of street view in order to visually memorize the landmarks I need to recognize."
Having served in the Army and being an expert in land navigation I find the 3D view far more useful since it provides a better view of the terrain. I almost never need to use street signs and I find the shape, dimensions and elevations of terrain, street, blocks, buildings and landmarks far more useful. Of course it's a skill that requires some practice but it's far superior but anyone can master it.
Street view can be helpful but it's like a trail of bread crumbs, miss one and your next to lost. It also requires too much interaction with the screen while driving.
Even Google's name is old fashioned! An absolute disingenious and dishonest company which does everything in its power to survive.
On another note, I truly enjoy this site and its priceless articles. Every day, I visit here at least a few times! So, thank you for all your hard work and information.
Comments
Agreed. It's hard to take the article seriously when this isn't mentioned. A year after Flyover and major markets in the USA still don't have it. Are they still mapping new cities or is Flyover dead?
However, noone can dispute that Apple Maps look much better than any competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj
Agreed. It's hard to take the article seriously when this isn't mentioned. A year after Flyover and major markets in the USA still don't have it. Are they still mapping new cities or is Flyover dead?
It is still growing...
http://flyovercities.com
This article is about iOS 7 Maps coming very soon.
Apple Maps: 1 Year Old
Is Google Maps eight times better than Apple's first effort?
Quote:
While Apple also added 3D building massing models of its own to iOS Maps in Standard mode (above), it additionally enabled users to take Satellite maps into the modeled 3D perspective mode Apple referred to as Flyover...
Flyover is not composed of satellite views. It's made by flying over a city with an airplane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
I think the criticism against Apple for warped 3D is unfair. It's a standard artifact of Photogrammetry and algorithmic techniques to detect things like bridges, trees, and other structures only goes so far and needs to be aided by human labor. The world is very large, so it cannot be expected that all of these would be fixed in short order.
On the other hand, Apple attracted some of the criticism on itself by focusing so much on the 3D aspect. It's a style-over-substance gimmick, not a competitive differentiator.
Agreed, and the Hoover Dam picture was little unfair and became the 'poster child' for what was wrong with Apple maps. The real problem had nothing to do with the warped picture though. The majority of people unhappy with maps were the Apple users themselves. Yes, the Android pundits simply sat back, cracked a beer, and laughed- which didn't help things any.
Apple maps looked pretty, they just didn't have a lot of the information competitors had and didn't *work* as well. That would have all been fine if Apple had simply released maps and given users a choice of picking which solution worked for them. In that case Apple maps wouldn't have been as famously criticized, they simply would have been largely unused until they came up to speed. The real problem was Apple tried to pull a fast one and pull the rug out from under Google by forcing Apple users to use Apple maps. They made Apple maps the default, did not give Google a 'heads up' and wait for any alternatives to be ready. Apple users were clearly not happy at all, and when released Google maps became the number 1 download on the App store. Apple violated its own golden rule and instead of famously focusing on user experience, they forced a product on its users that many felt were focusing more on whats good for Apple Inc. rather than what was good for Apple users.
I like Apple maps even though I can't use it. The pictures are certainly pretty, the functionality is improving. The author saying it is better because he really really wishes it were so doesn't make it truth- but I love the pace at which Apple maps is improving and the resulting competition driving improvements on all sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiltedGreen
Not a 3D issue, but one annoying feature of Apple Maps is that it doesn't tell you where you are in some places unless you drop a pin. The village in which I live has "no name" in Apple Maps, though it does in Google's. I have to drop a pin to find the name of the village. This even happens in some sizeable towns near me and that makes it quite hard to navigate around a map when you don't actually know the towns that you can see displayed.
That's part of a larger problem that affects most mapping software to one degree or another, which is that when you zoom out enough to get some perspective on your location, the labels that provide essential specifics disappear. This is particularly annoying when the street names vanish, as happens all too often. Now you know where you are with respect to the world at large, but you may have no idea what the next cross-street is. I feel that there should be something like a user-controlled slider that would set the level of detail displayed, independent of zoom level.
However the 3D display is no more than a thin layer of icing on a cake of highly variable quality. Until Apple fixes Maps' underlying problems, such as ongoing location errors, scant POI's and large scale failure to implement user-supplied corrections, 3D display remains nothing more than a pointless distraction.
Flyover is not composed of satellite views. It's made by flying over a city with an airplane.
That may be true, but the button is labelled "Satellite" in Maps.Trying to equate aerial views with street views is silly. They have different purposes, depending on where you live.
For modern maps, there's a need to include data from multiple sources: satellite, aerial, street, and interior. The latter collection is just starting.
-- Street View
Here in the Northeast US, street level views are very useful.
I use Street View all the time to preview a new destination. I can check what kind of buildings to expect (family / office) and where building / parking entrances are (especially important in NYC).
For my wife, I often preview the major street intersections.with her, so she'll be familiar with the signs. Again, a peculiarity of living in NJ and NY perhaps, but very useful along with GPS as an aid.
-- Web Support
Google Maps are accessibly by native apps or web browser. As an HTML5 developer, the AJAX APIs are very handy to create custom overlays.
I think it'd be great if Apple did like Microsoft and Google, and offer a web version of their Maps. This would also likely prompt more public feedback like Google gets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
The 3D view is nice for showing off, but it really doesn't have the utility of street level photos. For example, often when I am taking a road trip, I will "drive" the route near the final destination inside of street view in order to visually memorize the landmarks I need to recognize...
...What Apple ought to worry about is Google doing Photogrammetry on Street View level data to extract true 3D Street Views. This would make Street View work almost like a 3D game, provide data for augmented reality, and is not something that Apple can easily duplicate (unlike 3D mapping cities, which you can do by renting overflights with special cameras that do thousands of square miles at a time) without setting up its own fleet of cars to drive through the world's cities.
Your comments about photogrammetry are amusing. The paneling markers themselves would be a huge (and might I say expensive) job involving not only common plane surveying but taking into account the curvature of the earth. There is also the minor problem of foliage and inaccessible terrain. These special cameras do not get the kind of resolution you want while trying to get "thousands of square miles at a time".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjc999
BTW, Google Maps beta with Earth is not limited to four directions. Hold down the Ctrl key while dragging with the left mouse and you can pan in 3D at any angle.
Interesting but my phone does not yet have a Ctrl key or left mouse.. LOL. I am interested in navigation solutions that are available for use in my car and then easily taken to the train, bus, etc. from where I might walk. I can't see any of this with a laptop and certainly not a phone.
Secondly, they have building 3D focus-centric building blueprints on the straight-up vertical view as well. This is also very helpful for biking, walking, driving, or in my case, rollerblading.
Apple's flyover is a nice looking feature they've put together; but before I switch to it they need to work on the 3D blueprint models.
Their points of interest searches could use some improvements as well.
Anyone else here like the 3D translucent blueprints of GMaps more than Flyover, or is it just me here?
Why was another article really needed? Because the competitors paid for ten times this press, in lies, when the software was launched. Someone has to fight back.
It's been what, a year? and Apple Maps has already come this far.
All of this in a year, against a competitor that apparently specializes in this sort of thing, and Apple is apparently putting them to school in a number of areas within this service.
Having served in the Army and being an expert in land navigation I find the 3D view far more useful since it provides a better view of the terrain. I almost never need to use street signs and I find the shape, dimensions and elevations of terrain, street, blocks, buildings and landmarks far more useful. Of course it's a skill that requires some practice but it's far superior but anyone can master it.
Street view can be helpful but it's like a trail of bread crumbs, miss one and your next to lost. It also requires too much interaction with the screen while driving.
Even Google's name is old fashioned! An absolute disingenious and dishonest company which does everything in its power to survive.
On another note, I truly enjoy this site and its priceless articles. Every day, I visit here at least a few times! So, thank you for all your hard work and information.