Regardless of what the what Google tries, Apple maps' technology is years a ahead of Google Maps and Google knows this and Apple knows this. Google knows that its maps will be toast soon. And when layers of map information start coming out from third parties for Apple Maps, its superiority will really show.
Google's static 3D bitmaps are crap. Even their street view is inconsistent and with plenty of omissions.
Apple Maps' issues are much easier to fix than Google-Maps' architectural deficiencies.
Since both Apple and Google have money up the wazoo, I am predicting that in a year we will have much improved mapping from both. Competition is our friend.
I think the audaciousness of what Apple has done is going under-recognized. They have launched a brand new maps service which replaces an extremely mature service to their entire customer base (hundreds of millions of installed units in hundreds of countries) at a stroke. To keep the switch hidden as long as possible from Google there was no public beta played out over months or years to gather feedback. The service was scaled at launch to handle the entire request volume already being sent to Google. It's a hugely complex undertaking requiring integration with dozens or perhaps hundreds of data providers worldwide. I can't think of many companies which could have pulled off such a feat. I live in Tokyo and am inconvenienced by some of the teething problems, but I already benefit from some of the new features such as map labels which rotate to my direction of travel. The gap is tuning and tweaks, not technical fundamentals.
To that side by side map comparison in the article - granted that Apple's maps don't have buildings at any zoom level for this location, but the two shots are at different zoom levels which affects the level of detail shown. C'mon AI, reports of same view comparisons really need to be the exact same view.
Also the interesting point about recommending customers try other maps in the App Store underscores how good Apple's free maps are already. Try a few and you quickly realize it's a clever message. AT&T Navigator is only available to subscribers. MapQuest had awful blurry bitmapped map images for Tokyo. Telenav showed an empty screen for Tokyo. Bing installed a Bing app home screen with a search box but no obvious entry to a map of my current location. I wasn't prepared to pay $40 or so to trial a paid service. Apple Maps are free, globally available, and high resolution. Seems like the only real free alternative is Google maps, and they are close to surpassing them.
Duh... Slaps forehead... You hit on something that everyone missed -- at least I have not heard any complaints of poor performance of Apple maps. Just the opposite, many comments of improved performance over Google maps.
Couple that with all the extraordinary Apple map requests to:
just checkout the new app
see what all the fuss is about
visit places with errors touted by the press
refine and re-search for requests that returned invalid results
look for more errors vis a vis Google maps
play with 3D
play with TBT
We've had the iOS 6 beta on 4 iPads and 3 iPhones (2 iP4 and 1 iP4S) for months, We got another iP4S on the 21st and 2 iP5s on the 26th and 28th. In all this time, we've been experimenting with the Apple maps app, and it performed well -- as expected... We do most of our map requests on iPads over WiFi -- bigger maps, more data returned, more zooming, more 3D... more bandwidth.
Then comes the 1st week of iPhone 5 and iOS 6 availability and 1/2 Billion new map requests to Apple Servers -- and there was no degradation in performance.
This is a much larger ramp up than the server request volume that brought MobleMe, then Siri performance to its knees.
This is the great, untold success story of Apple maps... Apple can handle the requests volume... Service competitors, take note!
I think the audaciousness of what Apple has done is going under-recognized. They have launched a brand new maps service which replaces an extremely mature service to their entire customer base (hundreds of millions of installed units in hundreds of countries) at a stroke. To keep the switch hidden as long as possible from Google there was no public beta played out over months or years to gather feedback. The service was scaled at launch to handle the entire request volume already being sent to Google. It's a hugely complex undertaking requiring integration with dozens or perhaps hundreds of data providers worldwide. I can't think of many companies which could have pulled off such a feat. I live in Tokyo and am inconvenienced by some of the teething problems, but I already benefit from some of the new features such as map labels which rotate to my direction of travel. The gap is tuning and tweaks, not technical fundamentals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Duh... Slaps forehead... You hit on something that everyone missed -- at least I have not heard any complaints of poor performance of Apple maps. Just the opposite, many comments of improved performance over Google maps.
Couple that with all the extraordinary Apple map requests to:
just checkout the new app
see what all the fuss is about
visit places with errors touted by the press
refine and re-search for requests that returned invalid results
look for more errors vis a vis Google maps
play with 3D
play with TBT
We've had the iOS 6 beta on 4 iPads and 3 iPhones (2 iP4 and 1 iP4S) for months, We got another iP4S on the 21st and 2 iP5s on the 26th and 28th. In all this time, we've been experimenting with the Apple maps app, and it performed well -- as expected... We do most of our map requests on iPads over WiFi -- bigger maps, more data returned, more zooming, more 3D... more bandwidth.
Then comes the 1st week of iPhone 5 and iOS 6 availability and 1/2 Billion new map requests to Apple Servers -- and there was no degradation in performance.
This is a much larger ramp up than the server request volume that brought MobleMe, then Siri performance to its knees.
This is the great, untold success story of Apple maps... Apple can handle the requests volume... Service competitors, take note!
I am reminded of a story that circulated around IBM headquarters in the late 1970s. The story goes that IBM had commissioned a study to determine what would happen if a million requests were concurrently made to a maimframe database.
The company doing the study looked around for a "real life" equivalent with which to model the situation.
The best analog they could find was: "What is the likelihood that all the urinals in NYC flushed at the same time?"
Supposedly, the results returned to IBM were: "Don't worry about it (the million hits) -- you'll be knee-deep in piss before that happens!"
I am surprised at some of the great comments here. They are clear, concise and clearly show that the NYT, like many papers have become hit pieces. Maybe its the editors and owners. 20 years ago, everything was written and they had time to review stuff. Now its all electronic, even the printed stuff and they have just lost control.
Then again, maybe they have just given up.
Good comments people. PS, just handled the new iPhone 5. Nice phone. I am using a 4 and will stick with it for a few more months. My plan needs to refresh and the 4 is a pretty good phone as it is.
OH one thought for all those people that want bigger screens. I use an appletv at the house and anytime I want big (32 inch in office and 50 inch in living room), its just a click away. Cool enough.
No, it doesn't fly in the face of anything. Schiller's comments were in response to the hyperventilating hysteria that YES METAL CAN SCRATCH! There's no indication this is any type of flaw- I haven't seen a single scratch on a single iPhone 5 display model I've inspected, either in BB, Walmarts, of Apple Stores, which are handled by THOUSANDS of people. He's responding to the sensational, click-whore videos like the iFix it one, where she makes her 2 year old smash keys as hard as she can on the back of the iPhone, then rub them all over, again, and again, and again- and when it manages to show some visible scratching, that exposes the FLAW in the device. It's unbelievable. Nothing about your post makes a lick of sense, least of which is that list of companies. Why did you waste your time? You clearly don't own an iPhone 5 nor have experience with it scratching, yet you're so confident that the internet noise machine is somehow indicative of reality, where 5+ million phones have already been sold. On the internet, 50 people with blogs can make enough noise to make it seem like a 'majority', and people like you with no perspective fall for it.
As for your definition of "innovation", read this Gizmodo review, and although I'm not a fan of of the site, this is honest impressions from someone who has owned and used the phone for a week. He's insanely impressed with the build quality of the phone, as are millions of others, and I put more stock in that than your clear, frothing at the mouth Apple-hating post which contains no facts but alot of vitriol.
Schiller's response could not have been in response to hyperventilating hysteria because Schiller went too far in the admission if it were to be addressing only hysteria, or a few bad iPhone 5's or iPhone 5s that had been significantly mishandled by owners. I do expect aluminum to scratch and have other flaws when, say, hit with a hammer or the actions of 2 year olds you describe. But, Schiller's comments did not address that the iPhone 5 was not ruggedized and was not built to be abused. Schiller was too general in his comments. You're clueless if you think I or anyone else has to own or use an iPhone 5 to understand whether certain activities can and should cause damage.
You're simply lying, and for that I have nothing but enmity. Let me quote what the original comments were:
Alex: "I love my Black & Slate iPhone 5, but I've been seeing some scuffs, scratches and marks throughout the band around the phone along with many others. What should we all do? Any plans to fix this?"
Phil Schiller: "Any aluminum product may scratch or chip with use, exposing its natural silver color. That is normal."
The above statements constitute the entirety of the exchange, and nowhere is abuse-by-child mentioned, nor is Alex hysterical or hyperventilating.
No, it doesn't fly in the face of anything. Schiller's comments were in response to the hyperventilating hysteria that YES METAL CAN SCRATCH! There's no indication this is any type of flaw- I haven't seen a single scratch on a single iPhone 5 display model I've inspected, either in BB, Walmarts, of Apple Stores, which are handled by THOUSANDS of people. He's responding to the sensational, click-whore videos like the iFix it one, where she makes her 2 year old smash keys as hard as she can on the back of the iPhone, then rub them all over, again, and again, and again- and when it manages to show some visible scratching, that exposes the FLAW in the device. It's unbelievable. Nothing about your post makes a lick of sense, least of which is that list of companies. Why did you waste your time? You clearly don't own an iPhone 5 nor have experience with it scratching, yet you're so confident that the internet noise machine is somehow indicative of reality, where 5+ million phones have already been sold. On the internet, 50 people with blogs can make enough noise to make it seem like a 'majority', and people like you with no perspective fall for it.
As for your definition of "innovation", read this Gizmodo review, and although I'm not a fan of of the site, this is honest impressions from someone who has owned and used the phone for a week. He's insanely impressed with the build quality of the phone, as are millions of others, and I put more stock in that than your clear, frothing at the mouth Apple-hating post which contains no facts but alot of vitriol.
Schiller's response could not have been in response to hyperventilating hysteria because Schiller went too far in the admission if it were to be addressing only hysteria, or a few bad iPhone 5's or iPhone 5s that had been significantly mishandled by owners. I do expect aluminum to scratch and have other flaws when, say, hit with a hammer or the actions of 2 year olds you describe. But, Schiller's comments did not address that the iPhone 5 was not ruggedized and was not built to be abused. Schiller was too general in his comments. You're clueless if you think I or anyone else has to own or use an iPhone 5 to understand whether certain activities can and should cause damage.
You're simply lying, and for that I have nothing but enmity. Let me quote what the original comments were:
Alex: "I love my Black & Slate iPhone 5, but I've been seeing some scuffs, scratches and marks throughout the band around the phone along with many others. What should we all do? Any plans to fix this?"
Phil Schiller: "Any aluminum product may scratch or chip with use, exposing its natural silver color. That is normal."
The above statements constitute the entirety of the exchange, and nowhere is abuse-by-child mentioned, nor is Alex hysterical or hyperventilating.
And what are your qualifications to make anyone care about your opinion?
I have extensive CEO experience. Tim Cook doesn't have as many years as me, but a significantly larger company. He also has access to some of the best advisors in the business.
So why is your opinion more valid than his or my statements?
I believe I've adequately justified my opinion. And I could care less if you are or ever have been a CEO.
I went to best buy today and bought a nice Griffin clear back iPhone 5 case and then I found the head phones I was looking for. I got the AKG active noise cancellation on ear model which I love after testing them for a few hours now. Thanks for the recommendations of other sets @jragosta but I decided on these and I 'm very happy with them.
You have no way of knowing that because we have no idea what the normal range was prior to iOS 6. Further, it is only the installed base of iOS 6 that counts. Apple recently said the installed base of iOS 6 is about a hundred million. Divide that by the number of half billion Map searches and if my math is correct you have approximately 5 searches per user. To me that seems high. I mean honestly, you only use maps when you are lost.
You have no way of knowing that because we have no idea what the normal range was prior to iOS 6. Further, it is only the installed base of iOS 6 that counts. Apple recently said the installed base of iOS 6 is about a hundred million. Divide that by the number of half billion Map searches and if my math is correct you have approximately 5 searches per user. To me that seems high. I mean honestly, you only use maps when you are lost.
I agree with your installed base assessment but I think his half-billion statement was based on the number of iOS-based iDevices sold, not the number of total requests performed thus far.
At any rate, what should be calculated is the threshold the Apple Maps servers and/or their 3rd-parties can handle at any one time. Like with Siri, there was nothing preventing the iPhone 4 from querying the servers but it made no sense to include those devices when they couldn't handle the load from just the iPhone 4S sold that first weekend.
PS: This might be why Apple has kept Apple Maps off Macs/PCs from the start. They want the servers to be functional for at least one platform before expanding. If so, that is better than it all collapsing but I still contend the best scenario would to come out feature rich and steamroll Google Maps from day one. It'll be an uphill battle now to convince certain people that Apple Maps will ever be viable. First impressions are important in most things.
Thanks for bringing up that excellent point. Very few (if any) other companies could have pulled that off - and it was a massive win for Apple overall (at least after the noise settles).
Cook is not Jobs. Maybe you've forgotten how often Jobs was criticized for his attitude. Cook accomplished the same thing, but without the attitude.
And they couldn't have called it a beta. If they had done so, then the criticisms for removing Google Maps would have been justified. Furthermore, by most reports (once you get past the hysteria), it's not a beta. It's a very powerful mapping solution.
Well played.
I don't think that's the way most people will take it. They'll use Maps knowing that there's a backup if there's ever a problem. I really doubt if many people will ignore that big 'Maps' icon on their home screen.
Everyone seems to be missing the point of Cook's letter. It was not targeted at Apple's mass audience. 99% of those people will never see it. It was targeted at the tiny percentage of geeks and media who is trying to make an issue out of it. Basically, he took the wind out of their sails - but without harming their reputation since only a tiny number of people will ever see the letter.
I don't expect Cook to be Jobs, but Cook's handling of the matter will always be judged in comparison to Jobs. Further, Jobs Flash letter and antennae gate press conference honestly would only be seen by the press and geeks too, but Jobs didn't back down and apologize. No apology was needed. I guarantee the only reason Apple apologized was David Pogue's New York Times article slamming the product the day before, but his article was weak and based on one error discovered while he tried the product. Cook should have laid out why Apple made the switch, accentuated the positive (features and many people happily using the app), acknowledged some shortcomings, assure people the issues would be fixed quickly, explain it appreciated people using the Maps because it helped improve the product, and point the way to other products if users felt Maps wasn't usable for them.
I also disagree about the beta. Calling it a beta sets expectations. Google has called some of its flagship products betas for years. Nobody is bulking there. Siri was the major selling point of the 4S, yet it is billed a beta.
I agree with your installed base assessment but I think his half-billion statement was based on the number of iOS-based iDevices sold, not the number of total requests performed thus far.
At any rate, what should be calculated is the threshold the Apple Maps servers and/or their 3rd-parties can handle at any one time. Like with Siri, there was nothing preventing the iPhone 4 from querying the servers but it made no sense to include those devices when they couldn't handle the load from just the iPhone 4S sold that first weekend.
PS: This might be why Apple has kept Apple Maps off Macs/PCs from the start. They want the servers to be functional for at least one platform before expanding. If so, that is better than it all collapsing but I still contend the best scenario would to come out feature rich and steamroll Google Maps from day one. It'll be an uphill battle now to convince certain people that Apple Maps will ever be viable. First impressions are important in most things.
I took it to mean Apple's servers were hit with a half billion map search requests, which could only come from iOS 6 equipped devices. If so, that averages out to about 5 search per device. Whether that is low or high I don't know.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Regardless of what the what Google tries, Apple maps' technology is years a ahead of Google Maps and Google knows this and Apple knows this. Google knows that its maps will be toast soon. And when layers of map information start coming out from third parties for Apple Maps, its superiority will really show.
Google's static 3D bitmaps are crap. Even their street view is inconsistent and with plenty of omissions.
Apple Maps' issues are much easier to fix than Google-Maps' architectural deficiencies.
Time will tell.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Since both Apple and Google have money up the wazoo, I am predicting that in a year we will have much improved mapping from both. Competition is our friend.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2an
I think the audaciousness of what Apple has done is going under-recognized. They have launched a brand new maps service which replaces an extremely mature service to their entire customer base (hundreds of millions of installed units in hundreds of countries) at a stroke. To keep the switch hidden as long as possible from Google there was no public beta played out over months or years to gather feedback. The service was scaled at launch to handle the entire request volume already being sent to Google. It's a hugely complex undertaking requiring integration with dozens or perhaps hundreds of data providers worldwide. I can't think of many companies which could have pulled off such a feat. I live in Tokyo and am inconvenienced by some of the teething problems, but I already benefit from some of the new features such as map labels which rotate to my direction of travel. The gap is tuning and tweaks, not technical fundamentals.
To that side by side map comparison in the article - granted that Apple's maps don't have buildings at any zoom level for this location, but the two shots are at different zoom levels which affects the level of detail shown. C'mon AI, reports of same view comparisons really need to be the exact same view.
Also the interesting point about recommending customers try other maps in the App Store underscores how good Apple's free maps are already. Try a few and you quickly realize it's a clever message. AT&T Navigator is only available to subscribers. MapQuest had awful blurry bitmapped map images for Tokyo. Telenav showed an empty screen for Tokyo. Bing installed a Bing app home screen with a search box but no obvious entry to a map of my current location. I wasn't prepared to pay $40 or so to trial a paid service. Apple Maps are free, globally available, and high resolution. Seems like the only real free alternative is Google maps, and they are close to surpassing them.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Maybe Telenav has been in touch with Godzilla?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Duh... Slaps forehead... You hit on something that everyone missed -- at least I have not heard any complaints of poor performance of Apple maps. Just the opposite, many comments of improved performance over Google maps.
Couple that with all the extraordinary Apple map requests to:
just checkout the new app
see what all the fuss is about
visit places with errors touted by the press
refine and re-search for requests that returned invalid results
look for more errors vis a vis Google maps
play with 3D
play with TBT
We've had the iOS 6 beta on 4 iPads and 3 iPhones (2 iP4 and 1 iP4S) for months, We got another iP4S on the 21st and 2 iP5s on the 26th and 28th. In all this time, we've been experimenting with the Apple maps app, and it performed well -- as expected... We do most of our map requests on iPads over WiFi -- bigger maps, more data returned, more zooming, more 3D... more bandwidth.
Then comes the 1st week of iPhone 5 and iOS 6 availability and 1/2 Billion new map requests to Apple Servers -- and there was no degradation in performance.
This is a much larger ramp up than the server request volume that brought MobleMe, then Siri performance to its knees.
This is the great, untold success story of Apple maps... Apple can handle the requests volume... Service competitors, take note!
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Given the iOS installed base, 1/2 bn requests is actually quite low.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2an
I think the audaciousness of what Apple has done is going under-recognized. They have launched a brand new maps service which replaces an extremely mature service to their entire customer base (hundreds of millions of installed units in hundreds of countries) at a stroke. To keep the switch hidden as long as possible from Google there was no public beta played out over months or years to gather feedback. The service was scaled at launch to handle the entire request volume already being sent to Google. It's a hugely complex undertaking requiring integration with dozens or perhaps hundreds of data providers worldwide. I can't think of many companies which could have pulled off such a feat. I live in Tokyo and am inconvenienced by some of the teething problems, but I already benefit from some of the new features such as map labels which rotate to my direction of travel. The gap is tuning and tweaks, not technical fundamentals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Duh... Slaps forehead... You hit on something that everyone missed -- at least I have not heard any complaints of poor performance of Apple maps. Just the opposite, many comments of improved performance over Google maps.
Couple that with all the extraordinary Apple map requests to:
just checkout the new app
see what all the fuss is about
visit places with errors touted by the press
refine and re-search for requests that returned invalid results
look for more errors vis a vis Google maps
play with 3D
play with TBT
We've had the iOS 6 beta on 4 iPads and 3 iPhones (2 iP4 and 1 iP4S) for months, We got another iP4S on the 21st and 2 iP5s on the 26th and 28th. In all this time, we've been experimenting with the Apple maps app, and it performed well -- as expected... We do most of our map requests on iPads over WiFi -- bigger maps, more data returned, more zooming, more 3D... more bandwidth.
Then comes the 1st week of iPhone 5 and iOS 6 availability and 1/2 Billion new map requests to Apple Servers -- and there was no degradation in performance.
This is a much larger ramp up than the server request volume that brought MobleMe, then Siri performance to its knees.
This is the great, untold success story of Apple maps... Apple can handle the requests volume... Service competitors, take note!
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Given the iOS installed base, 1/2 bn requests is actually quite low.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I am reminded of a story that circulated around IBM headquarters in the late 1970s. The story goes that IBM had commissioned a study to determine what would happen if a million requests were concurrently made to a maimframe database.
The company doing the study looked around for a "real life" equivalent with which to model the situation.
The best analog they could find was: "What is the likelihood that all the urinals in NYC flushed at the same time?"
Supposedly, the results returned to IBM were: "Don't worry about it (the million hits) -- you'll be knee-deep in piss before that happens!"
Maybe its the editors and owners. 20 years ago, everything was written and they had time to review stuff. Now its all electronic, even the printed stuff and they have just lost control.
Then again, maybe they have just given up.
Good comments people. PS, just handled the new iPhone 5. Nice phone. I am using a 4 and will stick with it for a few more months. My plan needs to refresh and the 4 is a pretty good phone as it is.
OH one thought for all those people that want bigger screens. I use an appletv at the house and anytime I want big (32 inch in office and 50 inch in living room), its just a click away. Cool enough.
Just a thought.
Quote:
Apple can handle the requests volume...
If you think it's apple technology handling the volume, you have no clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
No, it doesn't fly in the face of anything. Schiller's comments were in response to the hyperventilating hysteria that YES METAL CAN SCRATCH! There's no indication this is any type of flaw- I haven't seen a single scratch on a single iPhone 5 display model I've inspected, either in BB, Walmarts, of Apple Stores, which are handled by THOUSANDS of people. He's responding to the sensational, click-whore videos like the iFix it one, where she makes her 2 year old smash keys as hard as she can on the back of the iPhone, then rub them all over, again, and again, and again- and when it manages to show some visible scratching, that exposes the FLAW in the device. It's unbelievable. Nothing about your post makes a lick of sense, least of which is that list of companies. Why did you waste your time? You clearly don't own an iPhone 5 nor have experience with it scratching, yet you're so confident that the internet noise machine is somehow indicative of reality, where 5+ million phones have already been sold. On the internet, 50 people with blogs can make enough noise to make it seem like a 'majority', and people like you with no perspective fall for it.
As for your definition of "innovation", read this Gizmodo review, and although I'm not a fan of of the site, this is honest impressions from someone who has owned and used the phone for a week. He's insanely impressed with the build quality of the phone, as are millions of others, and I put more stock in that than your clear, frothing at the mouth Apple-hating post which contains no facts but alot of vitriol.
http://gizmodo.com/5946599/a-week-with-the-iphone-5
Schiller's response could not have been in response to hyperventilating hysteria because Schiller went too far in the admission if it were to be addressing only hysteria, or a few bad iPhone 5's or iPhone 5s that had been significantly mishandled by owners. I do expect aluminum to scratch and have other flaws when, say, hit with a hammer or the actions of 2 year olds you describe. But, Schiller's comments did not address that the iPhone 5 was not ruggedized and was not built to be abused. Schiller was too general in his comments. You're clueless if you think I or anyone else has to own or use an iPhone 5 to understand whether certain activities can and should cause damage.
You're simply lying, and for that I have nothing but enmity. Let me quote what the original comments were:
Alex: "I love my Black & Slate iPhone 5, but I've been seeing some scuffs, scratches and marks throughout the band around the phone along with many others. What should we all do? Any plans to fix this?"
Phil Schiller: "Any aluminum product may scratch or chip with use, exposing its natural silver color. That is normal."
The above statements constitute the entirety of the exchange, and nowhere is abuse-by-child mentioned, nor is Alex hysterical or hyperventilating.
Slurpy. YOU'RE A LIAR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davida
Quote:
Apple can handle the requests volume...
If you think it's apple technology handling the volume, you have no clue.
Please enlighten me...
I never said whose technology is involved -- just that Apple, its infrastructure (including backend partners) can handle the requests volume,,,
Here's a little secret for you: iTunes and iCloud don't run on Apple servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
No, it doesn't fly in the face of anything. Schiller's comments were in response to the hyperventilating hysteria that YES METAL CAN SCRATCH! There's no indication this is any type of flaw- I haven't seen a single scratch on a single iPhone 5 display model I've inspected, either in BB, Walmarts, of Apple Stores, which are handled by THOUSANDS of people. He's responding to the sensational, click-whore videos like the iFix it one, where she makes her 2 year old smash keys as hard as she can on the back of the iPhone, then rub them all over, again, and again, and again- and when it manages to show some visible scratching, that exposes the FLAW in the device. It's unbelievable. Nothing about your post makes a lick of sense, least of which is that list of companies. Why did you waste your time? You clearly don't own an iPhone 5 nor have experience with it scratching, yet you're so confident that the internet noise machine is somehow indicative of reality, where 5+ million phones have already been sold. On the internet, 50 people with blogs can make enough noise to make it seem like a 'majority', and people like you with no perspective fall for it.
As for your definition of "innovation", read this Gizmodo review, and although I'm not a fan of of the site, this is honest impressions from someone who has owned and used the phone for a week. He's insanely impressed with the build quality of the phone, as are millions of others, and I put more stock in that than your clear, frothing at the mouth Apple-hating post which contains no facts but alot of vitriol.
http://gizmodo.com/5946599/a-week-with-the-iphone-5
Schiller's response could not have been in response to hyperventilating hysteria because Schiller went too far in the admission if it were to be addressing only hysteria, or a few bad iPhone 5's or iPhone 5s that had been significantly mishandled by owners. I do expect aluminum to scratch and have other flaws when, say, hit with a hammer or the actions of 2 year olds you describe. But, Schiller's comments did not address that the iPhone 5 was not ruggedized and was not built to be abused. Schiller was too general in his comments. You're clueless if you think I or anyone else has to own or use an iPhone 5 to understand whether certain activities can and should cause damage.
You're simply lying, and for that I have nothing but enmity. Let me quote what the original comments were:
Alex: "I love my Black & Slate iPhone 5, but I've been seeing some scuffs, scratches and marks throughout the band around the phone along with many others. What should we all do? Any plans to fix this?"
Phil Schiller: "Any aluminum product may scratch or chip with use, exposing its natural silver color. That is normal."
The above statements constitute the entirety of the exchange, and nowhere is abuse-by-child mentioned, nor is Alex hysterical or hyperventilating.
Slurpy. YOU'RE A LIAR.
And you @waldobushman are an apple-hating troll!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And what are your qualifications to make anyone care about your opinion?
I have extensive CEO experience. Tim Cook doesn't have as many years as me, but a significantly larger company. He also has access to some of the best advisors in the business.
So why is your opinion more valid than his or my statements?
I believe I've adequately justified my opinion. And I could care less if you are or ever have been a CEO.
Glad I'm chillin to RP and not engaging in this disaster of a discussion. You guys are stressing out for nothing. Get a life.
That's funny. One guy on a forum telling another guy on the same forum to get a life.
I went to best buy today and bought a nice Griffin clear back iPhone 5 case and then I found the head phones I was looking for. I got the AKG active noise cancellation on ear model which I love after testing them for a few hours now. Thanks for the recommendations of other sets @jragosta but I decided on these and I 'm very happy with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmatic
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Glad I'm chillin to RP and not engaging in this disaster of a discussion. You guys are stressing out for nothing. Get a life.
That's funny. One guy on a forum telling another guy on the same forum to get a life.
You need to tune in to radio paradise then it might make sense
Instead of complaints about something advertised as finished, they'd have received praise about something advertised as incomplete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Given the iOS installed base, 1/2 bn requests is actually quite low.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You have no way of knowing that because we have no idea what the normal range was prior to iOS 6. Further, it is only the installed base of iOS 6 that counts. Apple recently said the installed base of iOS 6 is about a hundred million. Divide that by the number of half billion Map searches and if my math is correct you have approximately 5 searches per user. To me that seems high. I mean honestly, you only use maps when you are lost.
You are correct!
However, in the long run, I think that bad publicity turned around into good publicity, will leave Apple ahead for the whole episode
I agree with your installed base assessment but I think his half-billion statement was based on the number of iOS-based iDevices sold, not the number of total requests performed thus far.
At any rate, what should be calculated is the threshold the Apple Maps servers and/or their 3rd-parties can handle at any one time. Like with Siri, there was nothing preventing the iPhone 4 from querying the servers but it made no sense to include those devices when they couldn't handle the load from just the iPhone 4S sold that first weekend.
PS: This might be why Apple has kept Apple Maps off Macs/PCs from the start. They want the servers to be functional for at least one platform before expanding. If so, that is better than it all collapsing but I still contend the best scenario would to come out feature rich and steamroll Google Maps from day one. It'll be an uphill battle now to convince certain people that Apple Maps will ever be viable. First impressions are important in most things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Thanks for bringing up that excellent point. Very few (if any) other companies could have pulled that off - and it was a massive win for Apple overall (at least after the noise settles).
Cook is not Jobs. Maybe you've forgotten how often Jobs was criticized for his attitude. Cook accomplished the same thing, but without the attitude.
And they couldn't have called it a beta. If they had done so, then the criticisms for removing Google Maps would have been justified. Furthermore, by most reports (once you get past the hysteria), it's not a beta. It's a very powerful mapping solution.
Well played.
I don't think that's the way most people will take it. They'll use Maps knowing that there's a backup if there's ever a problem. I really doubt if many people will ignore that big 'Maps' icon on their home screen.
Everyone seems to be missing the point of Cook's letter. It was not targeted at Apple's mass audience. 99% of those people will never see it. It was targeted at the tiny percentage of geeks and media who is trying to make an issue out of it. Basically, he took the wind out of their sails - but without harming their reputation since only a tiny number of people will ever see the letter.
I don't expect Cook to be Jobs, but Cook's handling of the matter will always be judged in comparison to Jobs. Further, Jobs Flash letter and antennae gate press conference honestly would only be seen by the press and geeks too, but Jobs didn't back down and apologize. No apology was needed. I guarantee the only reason Apple apologized was David Pogue's New York Times article slamming the product the day before, but his article was weak and based on one error discovered while he tried the product. Cook should have laid out why Apple made the switch, accentuated the positive (features and many people happily using the app), acknowledged some shortcomings, assure people the issues would be fixed quickly, explain it appreciated people using the Maps because it helped improve the product, and point the way to other products if users felt Maps wasn't usable for them.
I also disagree about the beta. Calling it a beta sets expectations. Google has called some of its flagship products betas for years. Nobody is bulking there. Siri was the major selling point of the 4S, yet it is billed a beta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I agree with your installed base assessment but I think his half-billion statement was based on the number of iOS-based iDevices sold, not the number of total requests performed thus far.
At any rate, what should be calculated is the threshold the Apple Maps servers and/or their 3rd-parties can handle at any one time. Like with Siri, there was nothing preventing the iPhone 4 from querying the servers but it made no sense to include those devices when they couldn't handle the load from just the iPhone 4S sold that first weekend.
PS: This might be why Apple has kept Apple Maps off Macs/PCs from the start. They want the servers to be functional for at least one platform before expanding. If so, that is better than it all collapsing but I still contend the best scenario would to come out feature rich and steamroll Google Maps from day one. It'll be an uphill battle now to convince certain people that Apple Maps will ever be viable. First impressions are important in most things.
I took it to mean Apple's servers were hit with a half billion map search requests, which could only come from iOS 6 equipped devices. If so, that averages out to about 5 search per device. Whether that is low or high I don't know.
I agree with the rest of what you said.