So you learn nothing from previously taken routes and will blindly drive according to the prompts from a GPS, even when you know it is wrong?
Huh? I get traffic information from the gps mapper and integrate that information into my route choices.
The route construction feature simply lays out the route choices for on the go notifications once I've selected the one I'll be using (there's three initially, all with about the same travel times but some more scenic than the others, which is less important at night on my way home), which, being audible, are far safer than looking at the display while on the go, yet for longer commutes where road status can change while on the way, the updated information can be quite useful. I, for instance, have a couple of bailout points were the route ahead to get clogged while I'm heading that way and with ongoing construction that can happen even at off hours and accidents, of course, are not predictable simply on past experience over a route.
Fundamentally, Google can never be a good strategic partner to anyone. Their business model is in the collection and monetization of users' data. The only organizations that would benefit from being part of that model are ones who also are focused on the collection and monetization of users' data. And that would create an inherent long term conflict with Google.
Apple's business model is clear. They sell you things. They don't sell you.
Fundamentally, Google can never be a good strategic partner to anyone. Their business model is in the collection and monetization of users' data. The only organizations that would benefit from being part of that model are ones who also are focused on the collection and monetization of users' data. And that would create an inherent long term conflict with Google.
Apple's business model is clear. They sell you things. They don't sell you.
Is that necessarily true? A company that has no focus on collecting user data might make a fine partner for Google, if they benefit instead from the Google service being offered. Provided, of course, that they don't mind their customers data being mined. In Apple's case it is more likely to be business overlap that broke the relationship.
Interestingly, few of the pundits (excluding DED), noted all of the problems with Google Maps. That stupid application sent me on many wild goose chases, including one where I ended up in front of a private residence about half a mile from the address of a store I was looking for. Another time it took me to a store that had been closed for a year.
NO application is perfect. That's why there are updates and new versions. Apple's Maps, IMO, started out at least as good as Google Maps and only got better while Google Maps started listing paid advertising.
Fundamentally, Google can never be a good strategic partner to anyone. Their business model is in the collection and monetization of users' data. The only organizations that would benefit from being part of that model are ones who also are focused on the collection and monetization of users' data. And that would create an inherent long term conflict with Google.
Apple's business model is clear. They sell you things. They don't sell you.
Over the past couple of years Apple has been ramping up the monetization of it's users, sometimes referred to as "selling you". They're in the game, particularly on iOS devices, just not yet to the level of Google. In their latest disclosure Apple tells you right up front that they may use your personally identifiable information for advertising purposes if you agree to use Apple products. Most users probably don't bother reading Apple's Privacy Policy and overlook the mention even if they do.
To Apple's credit they make it clear they won't share personally identifiable information with outside parties except in very specific instances. Of course Google's Privacy Policy says the same thing. They don't share it either.
When is Apple going to deal with overlapping markers on their maps? If you have a strip mall, all the stores are indicated at the same position, so you only actually see a single random store. This is my biggest remaining disappointment with AppleMaps.
What an insightful post. I look forward to such future drivel from you.
In all honesty, what new product has "everything"? Please point me to this mythical product that pulls every single possible feature from the future, so that no new version ever needs to be made, and it remains future-proof forever.
Re the topic, good. Apple maps has improved significantly, and will obviously keep getting better and adding more features. I expect public transmit to be added in 2014.
Queue all the "Apple maps made me get lost" idiots
This make me remember an old news many years ago, someone sued its RV mfg because he had an accident when he wrongly taught he could leave the wheel to take a nap at the back while his RV can drive its self on the cruise control.
i agree. i drove from san francisco to the east bay just yesterday and, thanks to apple maps, i ended up on the *old* span. i mean, really, c'mon apple.
First of all, Google Maps is not without mistakes .. do a "google" search to see them ... secondly, G/maps is a more mature version, started in 2005, I believe, so in effect .... google is in it's "maturity" phase while Apple's map version is still quite (1 year) young.
Think of it this way ... when Apple maps reaches "maturity" .... Google maps will be reaching "senility".
I thought they renamed Mt Egmont to Mt Taranaki. I haven't lived in NZ in 20 years though. Did the name not stick?
I grew up calling it Mt Egmont. In reality it was renamed Mt Egmont from Mt Taranaki then the PC Thugs got in on the act and decided that since the British stole the land off the Maori we should change it back to Mt Taranaki.
In my not so humble opinion and due to the fact I despise the PC Thugs I still call it Mt Egmont mostly because it has less syllables and I hate expending energy when I don't have to. :-)
wow. Google should really learn how to play nice. If they remained happy with offering internet services they would do very well. A Google services + Apple hardware + iOS is a dream machine.
But Google got greedy and stabbed Apple in the back with Android. Then they buy Motorola to build phones. Now Apple will begin taking away Google services from iOS devices one app at a time. Its only a matter of time that Apple switches out Google search. Bottom line is Google dipping into hardware/mobile OS platforms have not netted them any money. In fact they are losing over a billion dollars a year on Motorola and probably tens of millions from all the iOS users leaving Google Maps. Once Apple finds a suitable replacement for Google search or strenthens Siri's usability they will be toast.
Instead of worring about hardware/OS Google should have concentrated on search/ads. Now we have Facebook and Twitter coming into play. iRadio. Ect. All these will be begin pealing away search dollars.
Gmail will be the next best candidate for Apple to take away.
When is Apple going to deal with overlapping markers on their maps? If you have a strip mall, all the stores are indicated at the same position, so you only actually see a single random store. This is my biggest remaining disappointment with AppleMaps.
Isn't a strip mall technically a single address anyway? I mean on council plans they'd be for example 101-121 Mall Street or whatever not showing up as separate addresses but as part of properties. Unless the carpark of the mall is actually a street the shops in that mall will not be classed as separate addresses.
Google Maps will also use addresses unless someone actually manually enters the addresses themselves. Points of interest are generally user generated not generated through mapping services.
Anyway, not all the issues are Apple's problem because the mapping data is from TomTom which here in New Zealand is actually reasonably accurate.
i agree. i drove from san francisco to the east bay just yesterday and, thanks to apple maps, i ended up on the *old* span. i mean, really, c'mon apple.
I feel sorry for you if you live in the Bay area and do not know how to get across the bay yet.
Really people, unless you are in a totally new place why do you need navigation except to find the final destination. I never follow any GPS right out of the gate, I take path most convenient or familiar. This is why GPS have a feature which is to recalculate the path base on the direction you are taking.
I hate to say this, but I have been using WAZE, and I hate that google bought them since they are beginning to ruin it, but it is better than apple or google maps. It even has a feature which remember the paths you use the most often and take real time traffic into consideration. This would not have taken you over the old span, but if like following mindless what can people do.
Is that necessarily true? A company that has no focus on collecting user data might make a fine partner for Google, if they benefit instead from the Google service being offered. Provided, of course, that they don't mind their customers data being mined. In Apple's case it is more likely to be business overlap that broke the relationship.
I think it is true, because even in your example it's only a matter of time before Google introduces a competing service so that it doesn't have to share the monetization of that user data with the "partner". I struggle to find an example of any company that used Google services that reached a measurable size and didn't have Google try to crowd into its turf. Remember that Google's services only exist to drive traffic to Google's search and ad business, which are the only two real revenue streams they've managed to created.
Over the past couple of years Apple has been ramping up the monetization of it's users, sometimes referred to as "selling you". They're in the game, particularly on iOS devices, just not yet to the level of Google. In their latest disclosure Apple tells you right up front that they may use your personally identifiable information for advertising purposes if you agree to use Apple products. Most users probably don't bother reading Apple's Privacy Policy and overlook the mention even if they do.
To Apple's credit they make it clear they won't share personally identifiable information with outside parties except in very specific instances. Of course Google's Privacy Policy says the same thing. They don't share it either.
The only one I'm aware of is iAds, and it's a (somewhat) clear opt-out for users. Are there other examples? It's definitely not a significant revenue stream for them, especially when compared to Google where it's pretty much the only revenue stream.
Probably more to do with Apple Maps being the default. Besides "geek customizers" I doubt a high number of iPhone/iPad users change over to something replacing what their device came pre-installed with.
I'd agree being the default on the most popular and successful high end, well the only one in its class really, smart phone is bound to change the numbers dramatically.
Comments
So you learn nothing from previously taken routes and will blindly drive according to the prompts from a GPS, even when you know it is wrong?
Huh? I get traffic information from the gps mapper and integrate that information into my route choices.
The route construction feature simply lays out the route choices for on the go notifications once I've selected the one I'll be using (there's three initially, all with about the same travel times but some more scenic than the others, which is less important at night on my way home), which, being audible, are far safer than looking at the display while on the go, yet for longer commutes where road status can change while on the way, the updated information can be quite useful. I, for instance, have a couple of bailout points were the route ahead to get clogged while I'm heading that way and with ongoing construction that can happen even at off hours and accidents, of course, are not predictable simply on past experience over a route.
Fundamentally, Google can never be a good strategic partner to anyone. Their business model is in the collection and monetization of users' data. The only organizations that would benefit from being part of that model are ones who also are focused on the collection and monetization of users' data. And that would create an inherent long term conflict with Google.
Apple's business model is clear. They sell you things. They don't sell you.
Fundamentally, Google can never be a good strategic partner to anyone. Their business model is in the collection and monetization of users' data. The only organizations that would benefit from being part of that model are ones who also are focused on the collection and monetization of users' data. And that would create an inherent long term conflict with Google.
Apple's business model is clear. They sell you things. They don't sell you.
Is that necessarily true? A company that has no focus on collecting user data might make a fine partner for Google, if they benefit instead from the Google service being offered. Provided, of course, that they don't mind their customers data being mined. In Apple's case it is more likely to be business overlap that broke the relationship.
NO application is perfect. That's why there are updates and new versions. Apple's Maps, IMO, started out at least as good as Google Maps and only got better while Google Maps started listing paid advertising.
Over the past couple of years Apple has been ramping up the monetization of it's users, sometimes referred to as "selling you". They're in the game, particularly on iOS devices, just not yet to the level of Google. In their latest disclosure Apple tells you right up front that they may use your personally identifiable information for advertising purposes if you agree to use Apple products. Most users probably don't bother reading Apple's Privacy Policy and overlook the mention even if they do.
To Apple's credit they make it clear they won't share personally identifiable information with outside parties except in very specific instances. Of course Google's Privacy Policy says the same thing. They don't share it either.
These stats make me happy.
What an insightful post. I look forward to such future drivel from you.
In all honesty, what new product has "everything"? Please point me to this mythical product that pulls every single possible feature from the future, so that no new version ever needs to be made, and it remains future-proof forever.
Re the topic, good. Apple maps has improved significantly, and will obviously keep getting better and adding more features. I expect public transmit to be added in 2014.
The guy would probably drive a Homer Car
http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/The_Homer
A product of too many useless features.
Out of curiosity, what would you think of a company that sold you things AND sold you?
Oh, goody. An Apple car.
It's an all new product, so you can't expect it to have everything. Door handles on the inside will be added within the first six months.
Yeah, because Google products are not in beta for years and years. And none of them ever gets discontinued at what seems to be a whim.
Queue all the "Apple maps made me get lost" idiots
This make me remember an old news many years ago, someone sued its RV mfg because he had an accident when he wrongly taught he could leave the wheel to take a nap at the back while his RV can drive its self on the cruise control.
i agree. i drove from san francisco to the east bay just yesterday and, thanks to apple maps, i ended up on the *old* span. i mean, really, c'mon apple.
First of all, Google Maps is not without mistakes .. do a "google" search to see them ... secondly, G/maps is a more mature version, started in 2005, I believe, so in effect .... google is in it's "maturity" phase while Apple's map version is still quite (1 year) young.
Think of it this way ... when Apple maps reaches "maturity" .... Google maps will be reaching "senility".
I thought they renamed Mt Egmont to Mt Taranaki. I haven't lived in NZ in 20 years though. Did the name not stick?
I grew up calling it Mt Egmont. In reality it was renamed Mt Egmont from Mt Taranaki then the PC Thugs got in on the act and decided that since the British stole the land off the Maori we should change it back to Mt Taranaki.
In my not so humble opinion and due to the fact I despise the PC Thugs I still call it Mt Egmont mostly because it has less syllables and I hate expending energy when I don't have to. :-)
wow. Google should really learn how to play nice. If they remained happy with offering internet services they would do very well. A Google services + Apple hardware + iOS is a dream machine.
But Google got greedy and stabbed Apple in the back with Android. Then they buy Motorola to build phones. Now Apple will begin taking away Google services from iOS devices one app at a time. Its only a matter of time that Apple switches out Google search. Bottom line is Google dipping into hardware/mobile OS platforms have not netted them any money. In fact they are losing over a billion dollars a year on Motorola and probably tens of millions from all the iOS users leaving Google Maps. Once Apple finds a suitable replacement for Google search or strenthens Siri's usability they will be toast.
Instead of worring about hardware/OS Google should have concentrated on search/ads. Now we have Facebook and Twitter coming into play. iRadio. Ect. All these will be begin pealing away search dollars.
Gmail will be the next best candidate for Apple to take away.
When is Apple going to deal with overlapping markers on their maps? If you have a strip mall, all the stores are indicated at the same position, so you only actually see a single random store. This is my biggest remaining disappointment with AppleMaps.
Isn't a strip mall technically a single address anyway? I mean on council plans they'd be for example 101-121 Mall Street or whatever not showing up as separate addresses but as part of properties. Unless the carpark of the mall is actually a street the shops in that mall will not be classed as separate addresses.
Google Maps will also use addresses unless someone actually manually enters the addresses themselves. Points of interest are generally user generated not generated through mapping services.
Anyway, not all the issues are Apple's problem because the mapping data is from TomTom which here in New Zealand is actually reasonably accurate.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=yerba+buena+island&hl=en&ll=37.817027,-122.3567&spn=0.00513,0.0056&sll=40.002498,-75.118033&sspn=0.450241,0.716858&t=h&hnear=Yerba+Buena+Island&z=18
Watch that first step! A huge section of the newly opened bridge disappears as you zoom in. oops.
i agree. i drove from san francisco to the east bay just yesterday and, thanks to apple maps, i ended up on the *old* span. i mean, really, c'mon apple.
I feel sorry for you if you live in the Bay area and do not know how to get across the bay yet.
Really people, unless you are in a totally new place why do you need navigation except to find the final destination. I never follow any GPS right out of the gate, I take path most convenient or familiar. This is why GPS have a feature which is to recalculate the path base on the direction you are taking.
I hate to say this, but I have been using WAZE, and I hate that google bought them since they are beginning to ruin it, but it is better than apple or google maps. It even has a feature which remember the paths you use the most often and take real time traffic into consideration. This would not have taken you over the old span, but if like following mindless what can people do.
Is that necessarily true? A company that has no focus on collecting user data might make a fine partner for Google, if they benefit instead from the Google service being offered. Provided, of course, that they don't mind their customers data being mined. In Apple's case it is more likely to be business overlap that broke the relationship.
I think it is true, because even in your example it's only a matter of time before Google introduces a competing service so that it doesn't have to share the monetization of that user data with the "partner". I struggle to find an example of any company that used Google services that reached a measurable size and didn't have Google try to crowd into its turf. Remember that Google's services only exist to drive traffic to Google's search and ad business, which are the only two real revenue streams they've managed to created.
Over the past couple of years Apple has been ramping up the monetization of it's users, sometimes referred to as "selling you". They're in the game, particularly on iOS devices, just not yet to the level of Google. In their latest disclosure Apple tells you right up front that they may use your personally identifiable information for advertising purposes if you agree to use Apple products. Most users probably don't bother reading Apple's Privacy Policy and overlook the mention even if they do.
To Apple's credit they make it clear they won't share personally identifiable information with outside parties except in very specific instances. Of course Google's Privacy Policy says the same thing. They don't share it either.
The only one I'm aware of is iAds, and it's a (somewhat) clear opt-out for users. Are there other examples? It's definitely not a significant revenue stream for them, especially when compared to Google where it's pretty much the only revenue stream.
I'd agree being the default on the most popular and successful high end, well the only one in its class really, smart phone is bound to change the numbers dramatically.