You certainly have the option of not buying an iPhone with iOS 6, not using Apple Maps on said iPhone…
That's true if you didn't buy it the day it came out and if you can't use Apple Maps then someone should call Apple out for it until it's fixed. Fake address or not the problem exists and it's Apple's fault that the ad is even somewhat credible cause motorola doesn't even make that post if the problem doesn't exist.
That's true if you didn't buy it the day it came out and if you can't use Apple Maps then someone should call Apple out for it until it's fixed.
So we should also be calling out Google. Loudly. Vocally. In the media. Daily. Screaming 24/7.
Fake address or not…
Please don't pretend that argument is done.
…it's Apple's fault that the ad is even somewhat credible…
Apple can make an equally credible ad by simply inventing a location of their own and pointing their maps to it, claiming that no other mapping service is worth its weight in paper because it cannot find something that does not exist.
So we should also be calling out Google. Loudly. Vocally. In the media. Daily. Screaming 24/7.
Please don't pretend that argument is done.
Apple can make an equally credible ad by simply inventing a location of their own and pointing their maps to it, claiming that no other mapping service is worth its weight in paper because it cannot find something that does not exist.
Yes you should if you purchased a Google product and it did not meet your standards you should call them out.
Apple could make an ad like that and it would be credible for that one location but unlike Apple maps for other mapping services the problem is not wide spread which is the issue Motorola is jumping on.
Tell me that this wasn't created just to make as much mileage about the Apple Maps beatup. Whomever runs this account has been attacking anyone who tweets with tags that alert this account to a dissenting view. Didn't like me writing that Goog Maps has had my property elsewhere to its actual location for years. 'You'reunbelievably delusional' is the expression you were after.
Please excuse my mistake. I think it's abundantly clear that I have a good grasp of English grammar, but I appreciate your correction.
You're making the rash assumption that just any old bot can query Apple's map servers. That may not be the case. Also, searching for what isn't there is not as easy as you seem to think. But, either way, they had obviously been sifting through Apple's map data for some time prior to the release of i
As for your point that I'm delusional, you're either incredibly naive or totally out of touch. Companies, particularly Google, feed the media stories all the time. It's also pretty well known that they pay people to post on sites like this, pretending to be ordinary "citizens", and pushing the company "story". Sometimes what looks like a coordinated media/astroturfing blitz, timed to hit the street the day after iOS 6 was released and the day before the iPhone 5 was, is in fact just that and not a coincidence. Is "all" the noise from Google? No. But did they kick off and stimulate this particular controversy? I think it has their fingerprints all over it.
It's not like Google has shown themselves to be some sort of paragon of virtue. On the contrary, they've shown themselves to be a dishonest, in fact criminal, organization that has no respect for the any norms of ethical behavior. As a company (and perhaps this stems from the persons at the top) Google has demonstrated time and again that they are a psychopathic organization. They have no sense of right or wrong. They have no conscience. Absolutely nothing restrains their behavior, a psychopath will do anything they think will benefit them.
I can't prove you wrong here because there is no evidence that will contradict your claims. Similarly you can't provide evidence to support your claims. In spite of that I'm going to rebut your point and ask a couple questions. What media blitz? I saw lots of news networks discussing the iPhone 5 release, but none of them were harping on Apple's maps. Some tech blogs posted stories about the maps issues, but no site that I regularly visit posted as many stories as this one. You spend a lot of time here. Is it possible that the number of stories on this site is giving you the impression that the rest of the internet is ablaze with stories about maps? And is the amount of arguing that goes on in the comments section here leaving you with the impression that the rest of the internet is up in arms, taking a side on Apple's maps?
To your point about Google creating this news, regardless of the actual volume of news, and then bribing or forcing (or whatever you think they do) websites to publish the story, why would a website like The Verge take a bribe from Google to run a story? They gain nothing from being biased in their reporting because they're a general tech blog. Biased reporting actually decreases readership, except on websites that cater to a particular base like Apple Insider. Readers on The Verge or any other major tech blog aren't of one mindset and aren't going to be rallied into an Apple-hating frenzy by an article, unlike on this website.
Just as before, I can't use hard evidence to refute your claims of Google paying employees to post in comment sections, but I think that's a silly notion. Comments on blog posts are a source of consumer information for nobody. Nobody is going to stumble upon a Apple-bashing article and then scroll down to the comments to make up their mind on what they think of Apple. No, they'll make up their mind by reading the article and then comparing that information to the information they have already acquired and the opinions they have already formed. The comments section is where people go for entertainment, and I can't think of a good reason for a company to spend money to counter trollish comments.
Lastly, Google is no less ethical than any other company. They merely seem less ethical to you because you're already biased against them.
Is this to make a better product for the customer or another piece in their war to bury a rival.
Oh, so not the same path, then. I was confused there, because you did say 'same path', implying that Apple was going to start treating human beings as products being sold like Google does.
Oh, so not the same path, then. I was confused there, because you did say 'same path', implying that Apple was going to start treating human beings as products being sold like Google does.
Treated as a product or a pawn feels pretty similar to me.
Excellent points, Daniel. The ironic thing, as you pointed out, is that there is really no need to defend Apple in this. Nor to attack GoogleMaps. They're both right.
My co-worker wrote this up (http://goo.gl/8ka5C) and I wanted to expand on it a little.
First, I need to establish some terms:
VALID ADDRESS = a deliverable location. I could mail a letter to this address and it would get there.
APPROXIMATED ADDRESS = the location where a given address "would" be found if it were valid.
Let's begin. First, the only thing that we have is that the input address is: 315 e 15th NY. We can infer that the user probably wants to search (a) within the entire state of New York, or (b) just within New York City. In each case, a little more information in the search (like a state) would give better results. For this search, AS IS, here are the possible VALID address results.
First, a quick search for this address using an "address verification" tool yields these three VALID results:
(1) 315 Marlborough Rd Brooklyn NY 11226-4511 (Note - The delivery address is VALID, but it is known by another (preferred) name. For example, in New York, NY, AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS is also known as 6TH AVE.)
(2) 315 15th St Brooklyn NY 11215-5005
(3) 315 15th Ave West Babylon NY 11704-2740
All three of these are VALID addresses.
GoogleMaps made the assumption that the state is New York AND that the city is New York City, NOT one of the five boroughs that are collectively referred to as New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx, and Queens). Google Maps (in the advertisement) is showing an approximated address. If there were a home or business at 315 East 15th Street, that is precisely where it would be located. Kudos to Google Maps.
Kudos to Apple Maps, too: Apple Maps also made the assumption that the state is New York but they also assumed that the city is could be any of the five boroughs that are collectively referred to as New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx, and Queens). Apple Maps (in the advertisement) is showing the corrected address: 315 Marlborough Rd Brooklyn NY 11226-4511. This is a VALID address, not just an APPROXIMATED address.
Who is right and who is wrong? That all depends on the person who was performing the search. Which of the four locations were they hoping to find when they performed the search? Since both companies had to make assumptions based on incomplete (and potentially ambiguous) data, I would say that BOTH are right. I tend to lean a little more toward an algorithm that assumes that I am probably looking for a VALID address instead of just an APPROXIMATE location but that is just one person's opinion. It all depends on what you are looking for.
Censorship is when anyone prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expressions, etc.
Wrong. Only a government can actually compel someone into silence, limit what can be printed, or ban a book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
However, the 1st amendment to the US constitution prohibits the government making laws preventing freedom of speech.
There are no laws that say a company, your boss, your parents, a website, etc. cannot censor you.
A company or boss can fire you, a school can expel you, parents can ground you, a website can ban you. But none of them can actually prohibit or suppress free speech, ban a book, etc. except within the confines of their small sphere of influence.
In particular instance, freedom of the press assumes ownership the press. The person complaining about being censored may or may not be able to post about a topic on AI, but he is free to put up his own website and self-publish whatever tripe he was trying to spread here.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What do you mean "how"? Making up an address and then touting how your company can find it and others cannot is not valid advertising.
Why is it always the Anti-Apple Brigade that seems to be scammed into paying for iOS updates? Because no real person had to pay for iOS 6.
So you're saying someone that bought an iPhone 5 has the option to update to iOS 6? And I am not Anti-Apple.
Originally Posted by gdingfrii
So you're saying someone that bought an iPhone 5 has the option to update to iOS 6?
You certainly have the option of not buying an iPhone with iOS 6, not using Apple Maps on said iPhone…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You certainly have the option of not buying an iPhone with iOS 6, not using Apple Maps on said iPhone…
That's true if you didn't buy it the day it came out and if you can't use Apple Maps then someone should call Apple out for it until it's fixed. Fake address or not the problem exists and it's Apple's fault that the ad is even somewhat credible cause motorola doesn't even make that post if the problem doesn't exist.
Originally Posted by gdingfrii
That's true if you didn't buy it the day it came out and if you can't use Apple Maps then someone should call Apple out for it until it's fixed.
So we should also be calling out Google. Loudly. Vocally. In the media. Daily. Screaming 24/7.
Fake address or not…
Please don't pretend that argument is done.
…it's Apple's fault that the ad is even somewhat credible…
Apple can make an equally credible ad by simply inventing a location of their own and pointing their maps to it, claiming that no other mapping service is worth its weight in paper because it cannot find something that does not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So we should also be calling out Google. Loudly. Vocally. In the media. Daily. Screaming 24/7.
Please don't pretend that argument is done.
Apple can make an equally credible ad by simply inventing a location of their own and pointing their maps to it, claiming that no other mapping service is worth its weight in paper because it cannot find something that does not exist.
Yes you should if you purchased a Google product and it did not meet your standards you should call them out.
Apple could make an ad like that and it would be credible for that one location but unlike Apple maps for other mapping services the problem is not wide spread which is the issue Motorola is jumping on.
Originally Posted by gdingfrii
Yes you should if you purchased a Google product and it did not meet your standards you should call them out.
Ha ha! Good one! Almost had us there. Google stuff is free for the product to use. So we can't complain if we didn't pay for it, huh?
…unlike Apple maps for other mapping services the problem is not wide spread…
Oh, you wanna bet? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ha ha! Good one! Almost had us there. Google stuff is free for the product to use. So we can't complain if we didn't pay for it, huh?
Oh, you wanna bet? Really?
Yeah cause that's why I posted. Was to get you.
Well I haven't used another map service yet that had every business in a town wrong but if you want to prove me wrong feel free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo
Tell me that this wasn't created just to make as much mileage about the Apple Maps beatup. Whomever runs this account has been attacking anyone who tweets with tags that alert this account to a dissenting view. Didn't like me writing that Goog Maps has had my property elsewhere to its actual location for years. 'You're unbelievably delusional' is the expression you were after.
Please excuse my mistake. I think it's abundantly clear that I have a good grasp of English grammar, but I appreciate your correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdingfrii
Yes you should if you purchased a Google product and it did not meet your standards you should call them out.
With Google you're not the customer, you're the commodity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
With Google you're not the customer, you're the commodity.
Never heard that one before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
With Google you're not the customer, you're the commodity.
Is Apple starting to follow the same path then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
You're making the rash assumption that just any old bot can query Apple's map servers. That may not be the case. Also, searching for what isn't there is not as easy as you seem to think. But, either way, they had obviously been sifting through Apple's map data for some time prior to the release of i
As for your point that I'm delusional, you're either incredibly naive or totally out of touch. Companies, particularly Google, feed the media stories all the time. It's also pretty well known that they pay people to post on sites like this, pretending to be ordinary "citizens", and pushing the company "story". Sometimes what looks like a coordinated media/astroturfing blitz, timed to hit the street the day after iOS 6 was released and the day before the iPhone 5 was, is in fact just that and not a coincidence. Is "all" the noise from Google? No. But did they kick off and stimulate this particular controversy? I think it has their fingerprints all over it.
It's not like Google has shown themselves to be some sort of paragon of virtue. On the contrary, they've shown themselves to be a dishonest, in fact criminal, organization that has no respect for the any norms of ethical behavior. As a company (and perhaps this stems from the persons at the top) Google has demonstrated time and again that they are a psychopathic organization. They have no sense of right or wrong. They have no conscience. Absolutely nothing restrains their behavior, a psychopath will do anything they think will benefit them.
I can't prove you wrong here because there is no evidence that will contradict your claims. Similarly you can't provide evidence to support your claims. In spite of that I'm going to rebut your point and ask a couple questions. What media blitz? I saw lots of news networks discussing the iPhone 5 release, but none of them were harping on Apple's maps. Some tech blogs posted stories about the maps issues, but no site that I regularly visit posted as many stories as this one. You spend a lot of time here. Is it possible that the number of stories on this site is giving you the impression that the rest of the internet is ablaze with stories about maps? And is the amount of arguing that goes on in the comments section here leaving you with the impression that the rest of the internet is up in arms, taking a side on Apple's maps?
To your point about Google creating this news, regardless of the actual volume of news, and then bribing or forcing (or whatever you think they do) websites to publish the story, why would a website like The Verge take a bribe from Google to run a story? They gain nothing from being biased in their reporting because they're a general tech blog. Biased reporting actually decreases readership, except on websites that cater to a particular base like Apple Insider. Readers on The Verge or any other major tech blog aren't of one mindset and aren't going to be rallied into an Apple-hating frenzy by an article, unlike on this website.
Just as before, I can't use hard evidence to refute your claims of Google paying employees to post in comment sections, but I think that's a silly notion. Comments on blog posts are a source of consumer information for nobody. Nobody is going to stumble upon a Apple-bashing article and then scroll down to the comments to make up their mind on what they think of Apple. No, they'll make up their mind by reading the article and then comparing that information to the information they have already acquired and the opinions they have already formed. The comments section is where people go for entertainment, and I can't think of a good reason for a company to spend money to counter trollish comments.
Lastly, Google is no less ethical than any other company. They merely seem less ethical to you because you're already biased against them.
Originally Posted by gdingfrii
Is Apple starting to follow the same path then?
How?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How?
Is this to make a better product for the customer or another piece in their war to bury a rival.
It would seem that if it were with the customer in mind it would have come out in usual Apple fashion as a great product.
Originally Posted by gdingfrii
Is this to make a better product for the customer or another piece in their war to bury a rival.
Oh, so not the same path, then. I was confused there, because you did say 'same path', implying that Apple was going to start treating human beings as products being sold like Google does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, so not the same path, then. I was confused there, because you did say 'same path', implying that Apple was going to start treating human beings as products being sold like Google does.
Treated as a product or a pawn feels pretty similar to me.
My co-worker wrote this up (http://goo.gl/8ka5C) and I wanted to expand on it a little.
First, I need to establish some terms:
VALID ADDRESS = a deliverable location. I could mail a letter to this address and it would get there.
APPROXIMATED ADDRESS = the location where a given address "would" be found if it were valid.
Let's begin. First, the only thing that we have is that the input address is: 315 e 15th NY. We can infer that the user probably wants to search (a) within the entire state of New York, or (b) just within New York City. In each case, a little more information in the search (like a state) would give better results. For this search, AS IS, here are the possible VALID address results.
First, a quick search for this address using an "address verification" tool yields these three VALID results:
(1)
315 Marlborough Rd
Brooklyn NY 11226-4511
(Note - The delivery address is VALID, but it is known by another (preferred) name. For example, in New York, NY, AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS is also known as 6TH AVE.)
(2)
315 15th St
Brooklyn NY 11215-5005
(3)
315 15th Ave
West Babylon NY 11704-2740
All three of these are VALID addresses.
GoogleMaps made the assumption that the state is New York AND that the city is New York City, NOT one of the five boroughs that are collectively referred to as New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx, and Queens). Google Maps (in the advertisement) is showing an approximated address. If there were a home or business at 315 East 15th Street, that is precisely where it would be located. Kudos to Google Maps.
Kudos to Apple Maps, too: Apple Maps also made the assumption that the state is New York but they also assumed that the city is could be any of the five boroughs that are collectively referred to as New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, The Bronx, and Queens). Apple Maps (in the advertisement) is showing the corrected address: 315 Marlborough Rd Brooklyn NY 11226-4511. This is a VALID address, not just an APPROXIMATED address.
Who is right and who is wrong? That all depends on the person who was performing the search. Which of the four locations were they hoping to find when they performed the search? Since both companies had to make assumptions based on incomplete (and potentially ambiguous) data, I would say that BOTH are right. I tend to lean a little more toward an algorithm that assumes that I am probably looking for a VALID address instead of just an APPROXIMATE location but that is just one person's opinion. It all depends on what you are looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ateny
Is Bing Maps right on this?
Tried with Google Maps and got Geyer and Riverside mixed in both the top street and the one of the right.
yes, bing is correct, as is apples map
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Censorship is when government prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expression, etc.
You seem to be a tad bit confused.
Censorship is when anyone prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expressions, etc.
However, the 1st amendment to the US constitution prohibits the government making laws preventing freedom of speech.
There are no laws that say a company, your boss, your parents, a website, etc. cannot censor you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
You seem to be a tad bit confused.
Censorship is when anyone prohibits or suppresses speech, the press, expressions, etc.
Wrong. Only a government can actually compel someone into silence, limit what can be printed, or ban a book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
However, the 1st amendment to the US constitution prohibits the government making laws preventing freedom of speech.
There are no laws that say a company, your boss, your parents, a website, etc. cannot censor you.
A company or boss can fire you, a school can expel you, parents can ground you, a website can ban you. But none of them can actually prohibit or suppress free speech, ban a book, etc. except within the confines of their small sphere of influence.
In particular instance, freedom of the press assumes ownership the press. The person complaining about being censored may or may not be able to post about a topic on AI, but he is free to put up his own website and self-publish whatever tripe he was trying to spread here.