Oh, so we're going to drop the accuracy argument that you've been soundly losing and move to a features argument? Well, aside from the fact that the discussion had nothing to do with features, let's play your game.
Nope, we're dropping the entire article because it doesn't prove anything you're claiming and it doesn't stand for your definition of objectivity (the one you haven't provided), and especially since you have already accepted that it may be subjective.
Apple Maps - Fly By and turn by turn directions.
Google Maps on iOS - Street view and LACKS turn by turn directions.
Irrelevant to the argument. There is reason to expect Apple Maps to have the same features as Google Maps, but no reason to expect the same the other way around.
Unfortunately, trying to 'prove' either position is a futile attempt. That is why I think in situations like this, it is important to keep the law of succinctness (Occam's razor) in mind. Let's review some of the facts about iOS maps:
Massive media attention to mapping flaws
CEO publicly apologizing
Scott Forstall fired from Apple
Rampant end-user furor
Authorities making public warnings about application
As I see it, you can make the following 2 assumptions based upon these observations:
Apple iOS maps suck
Apple iOS maps are great; but the media has a hidden agenda to portray Apple negatively; and the CEO wasn't actually apologizing FOR the application; and the fact that Scott Forstall was let go had nothing to do with maps; and end users will always complain regardless; and Authorities are prone to "behave irresponsibly".
Now, with "<span style="font-family:sans-serif;line-height:19.200000762939453px;">other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one". To me, the "simpler explanation" here is apparent....</span>
Nonsense. False dichotomy argument.
In reality:
1. The media jumps all over Apple regularly. Even minor flaws are blown up into major nonsense-gates. Things that are pretty much standard for everyone else are calmly accepted - until Apple does them and then the media frenzy begins.
2. The CEO did not apologize for the app being bad. Read his letter carefully. He apologized because some consumers found that their expectations of perfection were not satisfied (specifically, he stated that the consumers expected "the best possible experience" and were disappointed that Maps did not offer "the best possible".). Since it would be impossible to offer the best POSSIBLE experience, his 'apology' is essentially what I used to say to defuse my wife's anger: "I'm sorry you're upset." It is NOT an acknowledgement that I failed in any way, nor is Cook's letter an acknowledgement that Apple's product was inferior to Google or anything else.
3. No one outside of Apple knows why Scott was fired. The publicly stated reason was that it was for lack of people skills and lack of team-building rather than any failure in the Maps. There is zero evidence that he was fired due to the Maps product.
4. End user furor - arises every time the media frenzy (1) starts. Besides, you're begging the question. What percentage of end users are unhappy with Apple's Maps program? You can't assume that just because a few loud people on forums like this one complain that it's a widespread problem. Please provide some evidence that the majority (or even a large minority) of people are unhappy with the program.
5. What evidence do you have that those authorities made a rational decision? And what evidence did they use? As I stated previously, a rational statement would have been to tell people not to rely on ANY GPS system since they have all had failures at times and to warn people to be sure to carry water and food in their cars when traveling to remote locations. Singling out a single GPS provider without any evidence that they're worse than the others is not a factual decision.
So NONE of your arguments prove what you claim they prove.
That's called a straw man argument. You're making up arguments and pretending I said them. No where have I claimed that Apple Maps is better than Google Maps. In fact, I've never even claimed that it's as good as Google Maps (although I stated earlier that my personal belief is that they're probably pretty similar, I don't have any evidence so wouldn't make that claim).
I am simply pointing out that you and all the others whining that Apple Maps is inferior have not proven your claim. Period. End of story. I don't need to make a claim of my own to establish that you haven't proven your claims.
Once again, you'd fail even the most basic logic course.
The person with the burden of proof is the one who is making the claim. Since I'm not making any claims (other than the fact that you have not proven your claim, of course), I don't have a burden of proof. If you can't back up your claims, you shouldn't be making them.
And the black hole story is a stupid example - and merely demonstrates that you don't understand science any better than you understand logic. There is plenty of proof of the existence of black holes and an astronomer could prove their existence using any number of lines of evidence. That's not what's happening here. You haven't provided ANY evidence that x > y (in my example above). None. Zip. Nada.
To be specific: Have you provided evidence that Apple Maps is inferior?
But the problem with your burden of proof is that it is unobtainable. That is what I'm trying to point out to you and you are clearly missing that point.
What I have shown is that even if you did not make the claim that Apple Maps is as good or better than Google Maps, the proof you request is something that you know that no one can provide. It's a logical fallacy. You can't even prove the reverse of the statment with the level of proof that you yourself require (again, regardless if you made the counterclaim or not).
If no one can meet that particular burden of proof from either side of the argument, then is it a fair one to use? No. It's like a murder trial where you are presented with all kinds of evidence that the defendant killed the victim (blood on shirt, fingerprints on murder weapon). But you refuse to convict him because there's no evidence showing a picture or video of the defendant committing the act.
You set the bar at a height that you know no one can meet. And then argue that since no one can meet that unobtainable level of proof, then we all must be wrong. I'm pretty sure that a failure of basic logic.
Nope, we're dropping the entire article because it doesn't prove anything you're claiming and it doesn't stand for your definition of objectivity (the one you haven't provided), and especially since you have already accepted that it may be subjective.
Nice attempt to obfuscate.
Let's simplify:
1. You claimed that Apple Maps was inferior in accuracy.
2. You refuse to provide even a shred of evidence that x > y (in my example above).
3. I point out that you have failed to prove the claim you made.
4. Having lost that argument, you try to change the argument to features.
Irrelevant to the argument. There is reason to expect Apple Maps to have the same features as Google Maps, but no reason to expect the same the other way around.
What's that got to do with the argument?
First, the argument was about accuracy, not features. You only changed it to features after you lost the accuracy argument.
Second, the differences in features are essentially:
1. Street view vs Fly By. Both perform essentially the same function and the choice between them is largely subjective. Neither one is likely to have any impact on safety, though.
2. Turn-by-turn directions vs. lack of turn-by-turn directions. Google's lack of turn-by-turn directions could be a serious safety matter since a lot of people are killed and injured each year by looking at their electronic devices rather than the road.
So, even with your switch to a features argument, you lose.
But the problem with your burden of proof is that it is unobtainable. That is what I'm trying to point out to you and you are clearly missing that point.
What I have shown is that even if you did not make the claim that Apple Maps is as good or better than Google Maps, the proof you request is something that you know that no one can provide. It's a logical fallacy. You can't even prove the reverse of the statment with the level of proof that you yourself require (again, regardless if you made the counterclaim or not).
You set the bar at a height that you know no one can meet. I'm pretty sure that a failure of basic logic.
No, it's not.
You made an argument. It's up to you to prove that argument. So far, you haven't provided ANY evidence to prove your argument - no matter what the height of the bar.
Where is the evidence that x > y? Until you can provide that, you have not supported your argument - and it fails.
1. The media jumps all over Apple regularly. Even minor flaws are blown up into major nonsense-gates. Things that are pretty much standard for everyone else are calmly accepted - until Apple does them and then the media frenzy begins.
2. The CEO did not apologize for the app being bad. Read his letter carefully. He apologized because some consumers found that their expectations of perfection were not satisfied (specifically, he stated that the consumers expected "the best possible experience" and were disappointed that Maps did not offer "the best possible".). Since it would be impossible to offer the best POSSIBLE experience, his 'apology' is essentially what I used to say to defuse my wife's anger: "I'm sorry you're upset." It is NOT an acknowledgement that I failed in any way, nor is Cook's letter an acknowledgement that Apple's product was inferior to Google or anything else.
3. No one outside of Apple knows why Scott was fired. The publicly stated reason was that it was for lack of people skills and lack of team-building rather than any failure in the Maps. There is zero evidence that he was fired due to the Maps product.
4. End user furor - arises every time the media frenzy (1) starts. Besides, you're begging the question. What percentage of end users are unhappy with Apple's Maps program? You can't assume that just because a few loud people on forums like this one complain that it's a widespread problem. Please provide some evidence that the majority (or even a large minority) of people are unhappy with the program.
5. What evidence do you have that those authorities made a rational decision? And what evidence did they use? As I stated previously, a rational statement would have been to tell people not to rely on ANY GPS system since they have all had failures at times and to warn people to be sure to carry water and food in their cars when traveling to remote locations. Singling out a single GPS provider without any evidence that they're worse than the others is not a factual decision.
So NONE of your arguments prove what you claim they prove.
Ha, you can't claim "False Dichotomy", and then proceed to backup the "other" option. I'm not sure you accurately understand what a false dichotomy is...
Ha, you can't claim "False Dichotomy", and then proceed to backup the "other" option. I'm not sure you accurately understand what a false dichotomy is...
Obviously, you don't have a clue about logic.
I was not arguing for either position. I was simply pointing out the flaws in his argument. Destroying someone else's argument does not mean that I'm necessarily taking the other side.
Everything? You may refer back to the third page in the thread where people were questioning the reason for the double standard, which is what I replied to. If you joined the debate without knowing what it was about, that's your problem, not mine.
Second, the differences in features are essentially:
1. Street view vs Fly By. Both perform essentially the same function and the choice between them is largely subjective. Neither one is likely to have any impact on safety, though.
I can read door numbers in Street View. Can you do the same in FlyBy?
2. Turn-by-turn directions vs. lack of turn-by-turn directions. Google's lack of turn-by-turn directions could be a serious safety matter since a lot of people are killed and injured each year by looking at their electronic devices rather than the road.
Irrelevant, nobody expects Google to be better since it didn't replace anything.
I whole-heartedly agree with keeping with Occam's Razor. However, it seems others want to make it more complex than it needs to be. I'm just showing that if you use even their side of the argument, it ends up coming to the same dead end that they're trying to prove.
Once again, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply showing that you haven't proven your assertion.
Until you learn the difference, you have no business even discussing this.
I was not arguing for either position. I was simply pointing out the flaws in his argument. Destroying someone else's argument does not mean that I'm necessarily taking the other side.
Right, because you are so logically superior to all of us.... At least I accurately understand what a false dichotomy actually is.
To be clear, you tried to present my 2 theories as a false dichotomy. This would imply that I setup the argument to only have 2 possible conclusions, with one being clearly outrageous, leaving the other as the apparent valid conclusion. The only problem to this is that BOTH were presented as valid theories, with the inference only being that one was a 'simpler conclusion' with 'all things being equal'. You even proceeded to repeat verbatim and justify what would have been the "clearly outrageous" opposition theory; which is why I'm at a complete loss for why you characterized my comment as you did.
Apple and Google had a multi-year agreement that Google furnish back-end data and services to Apple's Maps app.
this agreement was renegotiated for each new iOS/iDevice release
existing and older iOSes and iDevices were supported as an extension (or a condition) of the existing agreement
I suspect that in the iOS 6 negotiations:
Apple wanted all the Map features available to Android
Google wanted to include ads in maps
Google wanted to track location and user data
A standoff resulted. If they could not reach agreement, Apple had no choice but to offer their own solution for new iDevices and iOS6 and discontinue the prior maps app for same.
I have no way of knowing that the above is true -- but I have 56 years of high tech experience and 34 years dealing with Apple... and a pretty good idea of the ritual dance among frenemies.
Good points.... ...of course neither of us was a fly on the wall, but will note I've also followed Apple since the Apple I.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
Perhaps the reason they haven't changed the marketing materials is because they have a better idea of the real size of the problem, rather than guesswork based on the rumblings on the internet. This report, and the accompanying hysteria you've been swept along by, is based on a handful of people getting lost. How many others are actually reaching their destination using Apple Maps? Six, seven, or a few more than that?
I take your point on the advertising though. I once bought a packet of crisps that promised that they would be the 'best crisps I'd ever tasted'. They weren't. The packet is now in the hands of my lawyers.
Yeah, of course someone will sue. Someone always does.
Having said that, given the number of foul-ups with GPS these days, you'd think most operators would have been sued out of existence by now. I suspect that for the sake of a few bucks, no one really wants to stand up in court and admit they were foolish enough to follow their SatNav into the Pacific Ocean.
Granted (about my just being another net "rumbler")....
PS: When I'm in urban areas, like NYC, the lack of transit/walking directions makes the product purely useless (unless there's been an addition I haven't heard of). And there's lots of Apple customers in big cities.
PPS: I think the very ferocity and number of posts makes the point that this was, is and remains a problem for AAPL.....
He keeps missing the point and is definitely trolling on AI. Maybe, he is Apple defending whatever Apple does. He seems to blur every issues negative to Apple.
He keeps missing the point and is definitely trolling on AI. Maybe, he is Apple defending whatever Apple does. He seems to blur every issues negative to Apple.
I thought he was banned here.
Please explain how I'm trolling. I'm pointing out the errors in the arguments being spewn by all the real trolls. That's not trolling.
And please explain what point I'm missing. The simple fact that vaelian, Asia, e_veritas, and the rest have not been able to refute any of my arguments is pretty strong evidence that I'm making good, sound logical arguments.
But why don't you start by explaining what you're doing here. What's the purpose of the personal attack?
To be clear, you tried to present my 2 theories as a false dichotomy. This would imply that I setup the argument to only have 2 possible conclusions, with one being clearly outrageous, leaving the other as the apparent valid conclusion. The only problem to this is that BOTH were presented as valid theories, with the inference only being that one was a 'simpler conclusion' with 'all things being equal'. You even proceeded to repeat verbatim and justify what would have been the "clearly outrageous" opposition theory; which is why I'm at a complete loss for why you characterized my comment as you did.
Wrong. I teach Critical Thinking at the college level, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I checked my reference book to be sure. A false dichotomy is when you reduce a complex situation to a simple 'a or b' choice. Even if both choices are reasonable, the mere fact that you're pretending that there are only two choices makes it a false dichotomy. Or, if you want to look it up yourself, try this one: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy:
A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither.
Specifically, you claimed:
As I see it, you can make the following 2 assumptions based upon these observations:
1. Apple iOS maps suck
2. Apple iOS maps are great;
In reality, Apple Maps could suck, it could be great, or it could be anything in between. By offering only the two choices (it must suck or it must be great), you are making the classic false dichotomy argument. You are ignoring the very real possibility that it could be somewhere in between those two extremes.
Parents in law were talking about their iPad. Love the screen, love the photos, love the portability. But having no end of troubles with Apple IDs, iCloud, internet settings (wi fi, mobile data, etc).
At one stage, father in law came out with "It just doesn't work" - he wasn't being ironic, he doesn't know the old tag lines from Jobs.
Apple know how to do the fruit, but they still struggle with the orchid.
I'm a big fan of national parks and travel to one or more per year. The US was the first to officially establish one, Yellowstone, in 1872. I also enjoy my TomTom app on my iPhone. That said, I have never once thought to use an electronic map in the park. Perhaps it's different in Australia than in the US but they usually offer comprehensive maps near or at the entrance of the park.
Not really. They have gigantic areas of wilderness where you can't get wireless service. Even if you could, why would you rely on something with a battery as your only means of navigation? Analogue tools are still superior for such things. You can generally purchase printed maps locally, and a compass isn't a bad idea, especially if you aren't sticking to well marked trails. Not all trails there are well marked or maintained. A lot of the overland trails tend to be somewhat rough, and some of these parks can't even be entered by car.
Even then it's still a good idea to warn people not to count on Apple Maps as a sole source of reference. They may result in poor driving plans if they're that far off.
Wrong. I teach Critical Thinking at the college level, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I checked my reference book to be sure. A false dichotomy is when you reduce a complex situation to a simple 'a or b' choice. Even if both choices are reasonable, the mere fact that you're pretending that there are only two choices makes it a false dichotomy. Or, if you want to look it up yourself, try this one: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy:
Specifically, you claimed:
In reality, Apple Maps could suck, it could be great, or it could be anything in between. By offering only the two choices (it must suck or it must be great), you are making the classic false dichotomy argument. You are ignoring the very real possibility that it could be somewhere in between those two extremes.
Wow! You "teach Critical Thinking at the college level" is a complete joke based upon your reading comprehension skills.
First, you completely took my 2 assumptions out of context! Nowhere in my post was it implied that these were the only 2 options available. Instead, this was a comparison of 2 theories being debated in this thread as it related to the principle of Occam's razor. The main point of my post was that all things being equal, with both theories not being provable or disprovable, it makes sense to go with the simpler conclusion. I suppose I needed to have compared 3 options for me to not be using a 'false dichotomy'? Oh wait, then it would have been a false trichotomy!
Obviously, I must have presented every possible option to demonstrate the principle of Occam's razor, right? How about next time you want to go running around claiming "false dichotomy", you do so based upon the context of the ENTIRE post, and not a couple lines you snipped out.
He keeps missing the point and is definitely trolling on AI. Maybe, he is Apple defending whatever Apple does. He seems to blur every issues negative to Apple.
Wow! You "teach Critical Thinking at the college level" is a complete joke based upon your reading comprehension skills.
First, you completely took my 2 assumptions out of context! Nowhere in my post was it implied that these were the only 2 options available. Instead, this was a comparison of 2 theories being debated in this thread as it related to the principle of Occam's razor. The main point of my post was that all things being equal, with both theories not being provable or disprovable, it makes sense to go with the simpler conclusion. I suppose I needed to have compared 3 options for me to not be using a 'false dichotomy'? Oh wait, then it would have been a false trichotomy!
Obviously, I must have presented every possible option to demonstrate the principle of Occam's razor, right? How about next time you want to go running around claiming "false dichotomy", you do so based upon the context of the ENTIRE post, and not a couple lines you snipped out.
What part of your statement "As I see it, you can make the following 2 assumptions based upon these observations" do you not understand? It says that one can make 2 assumptions. The rest of the post (including the Occam's Razor comment) reinforce that. You were presenting the two options as if they were the only options. Without that assumption, the entire Occam's razor comment would be meaningless (that is, if there were three or more options, then choosing from only two of them would be foolish).
I love it when the trolls like you are proven wrong and you double down on your stupid comments.
Not really. They have gigantic areas of wilderness where you can't get wireless service. Even if you could, why would you rely on something with a battery as your only means of navigation? Analogue tools are still superior for such things. You can generally purchase printed maps locally, and a compass isn't a bad idea, especially if you aren't sticking to well marked trails. Not all trails there are well marked or maintained. A lot of the overland trails tend to be somewhat rough, and some of these parks can't even be entered by car.
Even then it's still a good idea to warn people not to count on Apple Maps as a sole source of reference. They may result in poor driving plans if they're that far off.
No, it's not. When you specify a single vendor as being a problem, there's an implication that the others are OK. So mindless people who go wandering in the wilderness with no food, no water, no maps, and no intelligence will get lost with someone else's GPS next time.
The proper response would have been to warn them that relying on GPS was foolish and that people should carry emergency supplies in their car when driving in remote locations and not to leave the car except in an emergency.
Comments
Nope, we're dropping the entire article because it doesn't prove anything you're claiming and it doesn't stand for your definition of objectivity (the one you haven't provided), and especially since you have already accepted that it may be subjective.
Irrelevant to the argument. There is reason to expect Apple Maps to have the same features as Google Maps, but no reason to expect the same the other way around.
Nonsense. False dichotomy argument.
In reality:
1. The media jumps all over Apple regularly. Even minor flaws are blown up into major nonsense-gates. Things that are pretty much standard for everyone else are calmly accepted - until Apple does them and then the media frenzy begins.
2. The CEO did not apologize for the app being bad. Read his letter carefully. He apologized because some consumers found that their expectations of perfection were not satisfied (specifically, he stated that the consumers expected "the best possible experience" and were disappointed that Maps did not offer "the best possible".). Since it would be impossible to offer the best POSSIBLE experience, his 'apology' is essentially what I used to say to defuse my wife's anger: "I'm sorry you're upset." It is NOT an acknowledgement that I failed in any way, nor is Cook's letter an acknowledgement that Apple's product was inferior to Google or anything else.
3. No one outside of Apple knows why Scott was fired. The publicly stated reason was that it was for lack of people skills and lack of team-building rather than any failure in the Maps. There is zero evidence that he was fired due to the Maps product.
4. End user furor - arises every time the media frenzy (1) starts. Besides, you're begging the question. What percentage of end users are unhappy with Apple's Maps program? You can't assume that just because a few loud people on forums like this one complain that it's a widespread problem. Please provide some evidence that the majority (or even a large minority) of people are unhappy with the program.
5. What evidence do you have that those authorities made a rational decision? And what evidence did they use? As I stated previously, a rational statement would have been to tell people not to rely on ANY GPS system since they have all had failures at times and to warn people to be sure to carry water and food in their cars when traveling to remote locations. Singling out a single GPS provider without any evidence that they're worse than the others is not a factual decision.
So NONE of your arguments prove what you claim they prove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's called a straw man argument. You're making up arguments and pretending I said them. No where have I claimed that Apple Maps is better than Google Maps. In fact, I've never even claimed that it's as good as Google Maps (although I stated earlier that my personal belief is that they're probably pretty similar, I don't have any evidence so wouldn't make that claim).
I am simply pointing out that you and all the others whining that Apple Maps is inferior have not proven your claim. Period. End of story. I don't need to make a claim of my own to establish that you haven't proven your claims.
Once again, you'd fail even the most basic logic course.
The person with the burden of proof is the one who is making the claim. Since I'm not making any claims (other than the fact that you have not proven your claim, of course), I don't have a burden of proof. If you can't back up your claims, you shouldn't be making them.
And the black hole story is a stupid example - and merely demonstrates that you don't understand science any better than you understand logic. There is plenty of proof of the existence of black holes and an astronomer could prove their existence using any number of lines of evidence. That's not what's happening here. You haven't provided ANY evidence that x > y (in my example above). None. Zip. Nada.
To be specific: Have you provided evidence that Apple Maps is inferior?
http://users.elite.net/runner/jennifers/no.htm
But the problem with your burden of proof is that it is unobtainable. That is what I'm trying to point out to you and you are clearly missing that point.
What I have shown is that even if you did not make the claim that Apple Maps is as good or better than Google Maps, the proof you request is something that you know that no one can provide. It's a logical fallacy. You can't even prove the reverse of the statment with the level of proof that you yourself require (again, regardless if you made the counterclaim or not).
If no one can meet that particular burden of proof from either side of the argument, then is it a fair one to use? No. It's like a murder trial where you are presented with all kinds of evidence that the defendant killed the victim (blood on shirt, fingerprints on murder weapon). But you refuse to convict him because there's no evidence showing a picture or video of the defendant committing the act.
You set the bar at a height that you know no one can meet. And then argue that since no one can meet that unobtainable level of proof, then we all must be wrong. I'm pretty sure that a failure of basic logic.
Nice attempt to obfuscate.
Let's simplify:
1. You claimed that Apple Maps was inferior in accuracy.
2. You refuse to provide even a shred of evidence that x > y (in my example above).
3. I point out that you have failed to prove the claim you made.
4. Having lost that argument, you try to change the argument to features.
Does that about sum it up?
What's that got to do with the argument?
First, the argument was about accuracy, not features. You only changed it to features after you lost the accuracy argument.
Second, the differences in features are essentially:
1. Street view vs Fly By. Both perform essentially the same function and the choice between them is largely subjective. Neither one is likely to have any impact on safety, though.
2. Turn-by-turn directions vs. lack of turn-by-turn directions. Google's lack of turn-by-turn directions could be a serious safety matter since a lot of people are killed and injured each year by looking at their electronic devices rather than the road.
So, even with your switch to a features argument, you lose.
No, it's not.
You made an argument. It's up to you to prove that argument. So far, you haven't provided ANY evidence to prove your argument - no matter what the height of the bar.
Where is the evidence that x > y? Until you can provide that, you have not supported your argument - and it fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Nonsense. False dichotomy argument.
In reality:
1. The media jumps all over Apple regularly. Even minor flaws are blown up into major nonsense-gates. Things that are pretty much standard for everyone else are calmly accepted - until Apple does them and then the media frenzy begins.
2. The CEO did not apologize for the app being bad. Read his letter carefully. He apologized because some consumers found that their expectations of perfection were not satisfied (specifically, he stated that the consumers expected "the best possible experience" and were disappointed that Maps did not offer "the best possible".). Since it would be impossible to offer the best POSSIBLE experience, his 'apology' is essentially what I used to say to defuse my wife's anger: "I'm sorry you're upset." It is NOT an acknowledgement that I failed in any way, nor is Cook's letter an acknowledgement that Apple's product was inferior to Google or anything else.
3. No one outside of Apple knows why Scott was fired. The publicly stated reason was that it was for lack of people skills and lack of team-building rather than any failure in the Maps. There is zero evidence that he was fired due to the Maps product.
4. End user furor - arises every time the media frenzy (1) starts. Besides, you're begging the question. What percentage of end users are unhappy with Apple's Maps program? You can't assume that just because a few loud people on forums like this one complain that it's a widespread problem. Please provide some evidence that the majority (or even a large minority) of people are unhappy with the program.
5. What evidence do you have that those authorities made a rational decision? And what evidence did they use? As I stated previously, a rational statement would have been to tell people not to rely on ANY GPS system since they have all had failures at times and to warn people to be sure to carry water and food in their cars when traveling to remote locations. Singling out a single GPS provider without any evidence that they're worse than the others is not a factual decision.
So NONE of your arguments prove what you claim they prove.
Ha, you can't claim "False Dichotomy", and then proceed to backup the "other" option. I'm not sure you accurately understand what a false dichotomy is...
Obviously, you don't have a clue about logic.
I was not arguing for either position. I was simply pointing out the flaws in his argument. Destroying someone else's argument does not mean that I'm necessarily taking the other side.
Nope, I did not make any quality claims in this thread. Feel free to prove me wrong with a quote, though.
You refuse to explain why that's relevant.
I claim that I haven't.
I didn't lose an argument; you failed to explain why providing the evidence you request is relevant.
Everything? You may refer back to the third page in the thread where people were questioning the reason for the double standard, which is what I replied to. If you joined the debate without knowing what it was about, that's your problem, not mine.
Nope, it wasn't. The claims of accuracy were part of someone else's argument which relevance was never fully explained.
I can read door numbers in Street View. Can you do the same in FlyBy?
Irrelevant, nobody expects Google to be better since it didn't replace anything.
How?
Once again, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply showing that you haven't proven your assertion.
Until you learn the difference, you have no business even discussing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Obviously, you don't have a clue about logic.
I was not arguing for either position. I was simply pointing out the flaws in his argument. Destroying someone else's argument does not mean that I'm necessarily taking the other side.
Right, because you are so logically superior to all of us.... At least I accurately understand what a false dichotomy actually is.
To be clear, you tried to present my 2 theories as a false dichotomy. This would imply that I setup the argument to only have 2 possible conclusions, with one being clearly outrageous, leaving the other as the apparent valid conclusion. The only problem to this is that BOTH were presented as valid theories, with the inference only being that one was a 'simpler conclusion' with 'all things being equal'. You even proceeded to repeat verbatim and justify what would have been the "clearly outrageous" opposition theory; which is why I'm at a complete loss for why you characterized my comment as you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree with most of what you say except:
Apple may have had no choice:
I suspect that:
Apple and Google had a multi-year agreement that Google furnish back-end data and services to Apple's Maps app.
this agreement was renegotiated for each new iOS/iDevice release
existing and older iOSes and iDevices were supported as an extension (or a condition) of the existing agreement
I suspect that in the iOS 6 negotiations:
Apple wanted all the Map features available to Android
Google wanted to include ads in maps
Google wanted to track location and user data
A standoff resulted. If they could not reach agreement, Apple had no choice but to offer their own solution for new iDevices and iOS6 and discontinue the prior maps app for same.
I have no way of knowing that the above is true -- but I have 56 years of high tech experience and 34 years dealing with Apple... and a pretty good idea of the ritual dance among frenemies.
Good points.... ...of course neither of us was a fly on the wall, but will note I've also followed Apple since the Apple I.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
Perhaps the reason they haven't changed the marketing materials is because they have a better idea of the real size of the problem, rather than guesswork based on the rumblings on the internet. This report, and the accompanying hysteria you've been swept along by, is based on a handful of people getting lost. How many others are actually reaching their destination using Apple Maps? Six, seven, or a few more than that?
I take your point on the advertising though. I once bought a packet of crisps that promised that they would be the 'best crisps I'd ever tasted'. They weren't. The packet is now in the hands of my lawyers.
Yeah, of course someone will sue. Someone always does.
Having said that, given the number of foul-ups with GPS these days, you'd think most operators would have been sued out of existence by now. I suspect that for the sake of a few bucks, no one really wants to stand up in court and admit they were foolish enough to follow their SatNav into the Pacific Ocean.
Granted (about my just being another net "rumbler")....
PS: When I'm in urban areas, like NYC, the lack of transit/walking directions makes the product purely useless (unless there's been an addition I haven't heard of). And there's lots of Apple customers in big cities.
PPS: I think the very ferocity and number of posts makes the point that this was, is and remains a problem for AAPL.....
AI! Why jragosta still around here?
He keeps missing the point and is definitely trolling on AI. Maybe, he is Apple defending whatever Apple does. He seems to blur every issues negative to Apple.
I thought he was banned here.
Please explain how I'm trolling. I'm pointing out the errors in the arguments being spewn by all the real trolls. That's not trolling.
And please explain what point I'm missing. The simple fact that vaelian, Asia, e_veritas, and the rest have not been able to refute any of my arguments is pretty strong evidence that I'm making good, sound logical arguments.
But why don't you start by explaining what you're doing here. What's the purpose of the personal attack?
Actually, you don't. See below.
Wrong. I teach Critical Thinking at the college level, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I checked my reference book to be sure. A false dichotomy is when you reduce a complex situation to a simple 'a or b' choice. Even if both choices are reasonable, the mere fact that you're pretending that there are only two choices makes it a false dichotomy. Or, if you want to look it up yourself, try this one: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy:
Specifically, you claimed:
In reality, Apple Maps could suck, it could be great, or it could be anything in between. By offering only the two choices (it must suck or it must be great), you are making the classic false dichotomy argument. You are ignoring the very real possibility that it could be somewhere in between those two extremes.
+++ QFT
Silly me... I thought this thread was about debating and logic skills... I agree it is an AAPL problem -- the Apple solution is not good enough!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm a big fan of national parks and travel to one or more per year. The US was the first to officially establish one, Yellowstone, in 1872. I also enjoy my TomTom app on my iPhone. That said, I have never once thought to use an electronic map in the park. Perhaps it's different in Australia than in the US but they usually offer comprehensive maps near or at the entrance of the park.
Not really. They have gigantic areas of wilderness where you can't get wireless service. Even if you could, why would you rely on something with a battery as your only means of navigation? Analogue tools are still superior for such things. You can generally purchase printed maps locally, and a compass isn't a bad idea, especially if you aren't sticking to well marked trails. Not all trails there are well marked or maintained. A lot of the overland trails tend to be somewhat rough, and some of these parks can't even be entered by car.
Even then it's still a good idea to warn people not to count on Apple Maps as a sole source of reference. They may result in poor driving plans if they're that far off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Actually, you don't. See below.
Wrong. I teach Critical Thinking at the college level, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt, I checked my reference book to be sure. A false dichotomy is when you reduce a complex situation to a simple 'a or b' choice. Even if both choices are reasonable, the mere fact that you're pretending that there are only two choices makes it a false dichotomy. Or, if you want to look it up yourself, try this one: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy:
Specifically, you claimed:
In reality, Apple Maps could suck, it could be great, or it could be anything in between. By offering only the two choices (it must suck or it must be great), you are making the classic false dichotomy argument. You are ignoring the very real possibility that it could be somewhere in between those two extremes.
Wow! You "teach Critical Thinking at the college level" is a complete joke based upon your reading comprehension skills.
First, you completely took my 2 assumptions out of context! Nowhere in my post was it implied that these were the only 2 options available. Instead, this was a comparison of 2 theories being debated in this thread as it related to the principle of Occam's razor. The main point of my post was that all things being equal, with both theories not being provable or disprovable, it makes sense to go with the simpler conclusion. I suppose I needed to have compared 3 options for me to not be using a 'false dichotomy'? Oh wait, then it would have been a false trichotomy!
Obviously, I must have presented every possible option to demonstrate the principle of Occam's razor, right? How about next time you want to go running around claiming "false dichotomy", you do so based upon the context of the ENTIRE post, and not a couple lines you snipped out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
AI! Why jragosta still around here?
He keeps missing the point and is definitely trolling on AI. Maybe, he is Apple defending whatever Apple does. He seems to blur every issues negative to Apple.
I thought he was banned here.
No, to all of the above.
What part of your statement "As I see it, you can make the following 2 assumptions based upon these observations" do you not understand? It says that one can make 2 assumptions. The rest of the post (including the Occam's Razor comment) reinforce that. You were presenting the two options as if they were the only options. Without that assumption, the entire Occam's razor comment would be meaningless (that is, if there were three or more options, then choosing from only two of them would be foolish).
I love it when the trolls like you are proven wrong and you double down on your stupid comments.
No, it's not. When you specify a single vendor as being a problem, there's an implication that the others are OK. So mindless people who go wandering in the wilderness with no food, no water, no maps, and no intelligence will get lost with someone else's GPS next time.
The proper response would have been to warn them that relying on GPS was foolish and that people should carry emergency supplies in their car when driving in remote locations and not to leave the car except in an emergency.