Yes, this is done ALL the time when making comparisons. Using your logic, it would be nearly impossible to make any comparisons without setting up false dichotomy/trichotomy etc. Dumbest thing I have heard today.
Let's say I wanted to have a discussion about the difference in types of vegetables, squash and tubers maybe. Starting out my conversation with "Assume we have 2 vegetables, a zucchini and a turnip" does not automatically qualify as a false dichotomy. Just because I only chose 2 vegetables doesn't suggest that these are the ONLY 2 vegetables in existence; explicitly or implicitly. Your inability to comprehend this is startling, and if you are indeed a 'teacher', I would like to know where so that I can make a mental note of where not to move my children...
That's not even close to being true. If one where an honest and intelligent debater, they would present the right number of arguments. If there are only two options, they present two. If there are three options, they present all three. And so on. No false dichotomy if the person is honest.
OTOH, your argument leads to the logical absurdity that there's no such thing as a fallacious argument. No matter how ridiculous of an argument you present, it's not fallacious because you COULD HAVE used a different argument. That is clearly absurd.
This is a fabrication that YOU have decided to make up. In fact, I never said that anyone had to choose ANY option. The two options were selected based upon previous discussions being debated for illustration. Heck, even your own definition for a false dichotomy notes the use of verbiage like 'either' and 'or'. Notice how my post did not contain this verbiage in my statement?
Considering any debate with you must be reduced to a reading comprehension lesson, I'm afraid this will be the end of my conversation regarding this. Cheers
ROTFLMAO.
So your argument is that the false dichotomy wasn't really a false dichotomy because you COULD HAVE added some of the other alternatives, but didn't?
The argument you presented is the argument you presented. You can't fall back on other arguments that you could have, but didn't, present.
By the same logic, try this:
Shoot someone and then say "Officer - I didn't really shoot that person because I COULD HAVE gone fishing instead".
Has everyone forgotten the errors in Google Maps in the early days of the service? How about MapQuest? I have personal experience with Tom-Tom inaccuracies as I use a Tom-Tom device in my car.
The bottom line is that ANY database is going to have errors, and while many errors will be corrected over time, some will always remain. As an earlier poster observed, making critical travel decisions in unknown territory relying on just ONE source of information is foolish in the extreme.
Yes, of course, but if you bring a half-assed product to the market to replace a competitor's offer in your platform, your product better be better than the competition or you must be prepared for the complaints. This is what the Apple fanboys don't get; people complain about Apple Maps because Apple replaced the existing Google Maps app with it, therefore Apple is fully deserving of all the bad press they've been receiving.
Yes, we're done with you because you lack arguments. You've reduced yourself to absurdity.
Dude, you're denying reality now! I lack arguments? How can you make such a claim? What is it that I did not successfully refute for you to claim that I lack arguments? I'm asking questions; why aren't you answering them?
Using your own words against you: Why are you dodging my questions? You claim that I lost the argument, I lost where and and you gave no answer, thus not satisfying your burden of proof. How come, then, do you claim that I am the one without arguments?
Really, tell me, because I want to believe that you are not a complete retard!
Yes, we're done with you because you lack arguments.
That's not true. He doesn't completely lack arguments. He only lacks good arguments.
For example, he presented the argument that no matter how ridiculous his arguments are, they are still valid because he COULD HAVE presented a different argument.
Dude, you're denying reality now! I lack arguments? How can you make such a claim? What is it that I did not successfully refute for you to claim that I lack arguments? I'm asking questions; why aren't you answering them?
Using your own words against you: Why are you dodging my questions? You claim that I lost the argument, I lost where and and you gave no answer, thus not satisfying your burden of proof. How come, then, do you claim that I am the one without arguments?
Really, tell me, because I want to believe that you are not a complete retard!
Speaking of dodging questions:
Apple's Maps has x number of errors.
Google's Maps has y number of errors.
You have been consistently claiming that Apple's Maps is not as good as Google's Maps because of the number of errors (which is the entire point of this thread). For that claim to be correct, you must have evidence that x > y. So where is the evidence and what are x and y?
For example, he presented the argument that no matter how ridiculous his arguments are, they are still valid because he COULD HAVE presented a different argument.
This is a lie. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong with a quote.
It is clear to me, at this point, that both of you are ignoring my posts simply because you can not refute them, which is why you are replying to each other rather than me.
You have been consistently claiming that Apple's Maps is not as good as Google's Maps because of the number of errors (which is the entire point of this thread). For that claim to be correct, you must have evidence that x > y. So where is the evidence and what are x and y?
No, I have not. Cite the comment where I did it or accept defeat. This is a straw man fallacy.
This is what the Apple fanboys don't get; people complain about Apple Maps because Apple replaced the existing Google Maps app with it, therefore Apple is fully deserving of all the bad press they've been receiving.
Or maybe they don't get why people would ever think this, given that users can still get to Google Maps, have the same features, and are therefore not deserving of the bad press.
This is what the Apple fanboys don't get; people complain about Apple Maps because Apple replaced the existing Google Maps app with it, therefore Apple is fully deserving of all the bad press they've been receiving.
Or maybe they don't get why people would ever think this, given that users can still get to Google Maps, have the same features, and are therefore not deserving of the bad press.
Or maybe this has already been posted and I have already refuted it twice in this thread... For starters it doesn't even make sense to consider Google Maps on the web because the service already existed before Apple Maps, so nothing was gained or lost there. Secondly, Google Maps on the web is not tightly integrated with iOS like the app was, and on top of that has issues such as the maps not rotating, the cursor requiring a reliable network connection to move (otherwise it jumps around), the lack of Street View, and the inability to save dropped pins.
Isn't this the crux of your entire argument? And yet it's still there.
Contest that if you will, but what you can't is the fact that things have been gained. maps.google.com is more functional than ever before, and it's a fine supplement to Apple Maps.
Yes, but it's not as simple as you suggest. The fundamental problem is that the region and the city have the same name. When you type 'Mildura', it assumes you want the region and sends you to the middle of the region. If you type 'Mildura city', it sends you to the city. If you type a street address, it takes you to the street address.
For something familiar to Americans, look up cities which have their state names:
I tried 'Utah' and 'Delaware'. In both cases, the word took me to the middle of the state, NOT the city. Apparently, when given the choice between a city and a state with the same name, Maps chooses the state - which is what it did in Mildura, too. I don't think that's unreasonable behavior.
There is one exception, though: New York. When you simply enter 'New York', it takes you to the city. Presumably, they chose to override the standard 'select the state rather than the city when both have the same name' rule because of the size and population of New York City.
It's not at all clear that it's an error - just confusion caused by the use of a city and a region with the same name.
You really need to stop generalising America to the rest of the world. In Australia, we have shires and towns. In this instance, towns are called towns, shires are called shires. The town is called Mildura, the shire is called 'The Rural City of Mildura' - very different. Some shires have similar names, others don't.
Stop acting like you're an Australian expert, you look like a fool. You keep saying things that simply is not true for Australia. And you keep making justifications that are inaccurate...
More importantly, as I said before (which you completely ignored) why did this take so long to fix? Why is Apple so ridiculously slow at fixing things?
If you actually jump on your Apple Maps, and type in "Seymour, Mooroopna, Tallarook, Craigieburn, Broadmeadows, Kyabram, Tatura, Rushworth, Congupna, Cobram" and there are COUNTLESS more... they don't have location markers on the map. If you were to randomly scroll over The state of Victoria, you'd think it was largely uninhabited. Yet, it's a thriving state which is the more densely populated state in Australia. Also, when typing in these locations, many of locations Apple use are inaccurate.
In particular, type in Rushworth, it'll take to you to the middle of Waranga Basin, yep, apparently this town is in a lake? And guess what genius? The shire for this town is called Campaspe? So based on speculation, you'd be wrong.
Apple have made really bad Maps in Australia, especially compared to maps in iOS5.
The are so bad for regional users, they're practically unusable.
No, the number of posts here represent a relatively small number of people who are not what you'd call typical Apple consumers - they're mostly techies or Android/Google fans.
Incidentally, it turns out that the problem was caused by a POI problem. Apple was using data provided by the Australian Gazetteer, the official go-to guide for this type of information. Yes, the dataset came from the state of Victoria itself. Which brings me back to my original point: the problem is the data, not the app, and this will not be discovered until it is actually used. If the state of Victoria can't provide correct geographical data then that won't be fixed by 'testing' Map applications inside a bunker.
We've heard it said many times before, why would this guy drive into the wilderness with one lot of mapping information? Why wouldn't he check more than one source? The same should hold true for Apple! Why didn't they check other mapping providers?
But in all honesty, I don't think this was the reason the mapping information was incorrect, because there are so many other towns in the wrong place.
Also, the dataset came from the Australian Government (if this information is indeed true), not the state of Victoria.
And the dataset is accurate, because the location marker is simply stating the Shire name, which is the 'Rural City of Mildura'. So realistically, Apple made an assumption that the Rural City of Mildura was a town, not a Shire.
You really need to stop generalising America to the rest of the world. In Australia, we have shires and towns. In this instance, towns are called towns, shires are called shires. The town is called Mildura, the shire is called 'The Rural City of Mildura' - very different. Some shires have similar names, others don't.
Stop acting like you're an Australian expert, you look like a fool. You keep saying things that simply is not true for Australia. And you keep making justifications that are inaccurate...
Maybe you should settle down and read what I wrote before launching into your nasty comments. I never professed to be an expert for Australia. Nor does your post indicate that anything I said was wrong.
Call them shires, towns, villages, metropolises, empires, or sietches. It doesn't matter. The point is that when a larger area and a smaller area have the same name, and the user enters only the name (without being more specific), Apple Maps shows the center of the larger area. My example was something that would be recognizable to Americans - if you enter 'Utah', it moves you to the center of the state, even though there's a city called 'Utah'. If you enter 'Delaware', it shows you the center of the state, even though there's a Delaware City.
So it doesn't matter whether you call it a town, shire, or anything else. Apple's Map is doing the same thing for Mildura that it does for locations in the US (other than New York for some reason). When you type simply 'Mildura', it assumes you want the larger area (province, town, state, whatever). When you type 'Mildura City', it gives you the location of what most people refer to as a town or village or city and which you want to call a shire or "the rural city of Mildura".
Nothing I posted was inaccurate, nor did anything I posted claim to make me an expert. I was discussing the general principle, not the specific names you choose to call geographic subdivisions.
Maybe you should settle down and read what I wrote before launching into your nasty comments. I never professed to be an expert for Australia. Nor does your post indicate that anything I said was wrong.
Call them shires, towns, villages, metropolises, empires, or sietches. It doesn't matter. The point is that when a larger area and a smaller area have the same name, and the user enters only the name (without being more specific), Apple Maps shows the center of the larger area. My example was something that would be recognizable to Americans - if you enter 'Utah', it moves you to the center of the state, even though there's a city called 'Utah'. If you enter 'Delaware', it shows you the center of the state, even though there's a Delaware City.
So it doesn't matter whether you call it a town, shire, or anything else. Apple's Map is doing the same thing for Mildura that it does for locations in the US (other than New York for some reason). When you type simply 'Mildura', it assumes you want the larger area (province, town, state, whatever). When you type 'Mildura City', it gives you the location of what most people refer to as a town or village or city and which you want to call a shire or "the rural city of Mildura".
Nothing I posted was inaccurate, nor did anything I posted claim to make me an expert. I was discussing the general principle, not the specific names you choose to call geographic subdivisions.
Don't get caught up on semantics, mate.
You are wrong though, and you are ignorant. I explained to you very clearly that Midura is the town, the 'Rural City of Mildura' is the shire. Based on your logic, typing in Mildura City should give you Shire, since that's what it's called. They are different names.
Gotta love how you ignored the rest of the post, which clearly illustrates Apple's incompetency in relation to mapping, in Regional Australia Areas.
"As I previous stated: In particular, type in Rushworth, it'll take to you to the middle of Waranga Basin, yep, apparently this town is in a lake? And guess what genius? The shire for this town is called Campaspe? So based on speculation, you'd be wrong."
I stand by this, you are making the assumption that 'Mildura' and 'Rural City of Mildura' are the same thing.
You can tell me all the princples you want, that's fantastic, but they don't work downunder, because our shires and towns have different names.
Isn't this the crux of your entire argument? And yet it's still there.
Nope, that's quoting out of context, a fallacy, which also tells me that you are trolling, so all I'll do from this point forward will be to nitpick on the logic of your posts.
Contest that if you will, but what you can't is the fact that things have been gained. maps.google.com is more functional than ever before, and it's a fine supplement to Apple Maps.
That point actually reinforces my argument, so thanks. Google giving me back things that Apple took from me justifies the double standard against Apple.
Only because I have not upgraded yet. Had I upgraded, I would actually have lost the native and tightly integrated Google Maps app. Of course, this has already been mentioned...
But I still would like to know why Apple feels it needs to be in the mapping business. It's not something you can do quickly or on the cheap. Are the only options Google maps or Apple doing their own solution?
Do you think they shouldn't be?
Are you implying that it's somehow unjustified for Apple to be in the mapping business when Microsoft and Yahoo and Google are doing it too?
Apple was in the mapping business since the first iPhone shipped with the Maps app. In the same sense that they are in the phone and camera business because these features are also a core part of the iPhone, and Apple's customers use of their iPhones for making phone calls, taking pictures, and looking at maps. Apple also provide APIs for third-party apps to display maps and use geolocation features of the OS. If they want to evolve the features of mapping, they should own the backend mapping services too. They just switched from Google's data to Tom Tom's data, and presumably moved the mapping servers from Google's data center to Apple's. While there are "other solutions" (such as using Bing mapping servers), why would Apple move from depending on Google to depending on Microsoft?
Locating Mildura is pointing it to the proper location indeed. But routing to it is still not right.
Routing from where? What is wrong with the route? I am not familiar with the territory, but looking at a route from Melbourne to Mildura -- it looks pretty reasonable to me.
You are wrong though, and you are ignorant. I explained to you very clearly that Midura is the town, the 'Rural City of Mildura' is the shire. Based on your logic, typing in Mildura City should give you Shire, since that's what it's called. They are different names.
Gotta love how you ignored the rest of the post, which clearly illustrates Apple's incompetency in relation to mapping, in Regional Australia Areas.
"As I previous stated: <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">In particular, type in Rushworth, it'll take to you to the middle of Waranga Basin, yep, apparently this town is in a lake? And guess what genius? The shire for this town is called Campaspe? So based on speculation, you'd be wrong."</span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">I stand by this, you are making the assumption that 'Mildura' and 'Rural City of Mildura' are the same thing.</span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">You can tell me all the princples you want, that's fantastic, but they don't work downunder, because our shires and towns have different names. </span>
You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. And then, stop accusing me of things I never said. For example, I never commented on Campaspe or Waranga.
So before you start sarcastically calling people 'genius', you should learn to read.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
I was? Where and when? Are you done with me due to lack of arguments?
Yes, we're done with you because you lack arguments. You've reduced yourself to absurdity.
That's not even close to being true. If one where an honest and intelligent debater, they would present the right number of arguments. If there are only two options, they present two. If there are three options, they present all three. And so on. No false dichotomy if the person is honest.
OTOH, your argument leads to the logical absurdity that there's no such thing as a fallacious argument. No matter how ridiculous of an argument you present, it's not fallacious because you COULD HAVE used a different argument. That is clearly absurd.
ROTFLMAO.
So your argument is that the false dichotomy wasn't really a false dichotomy because you COULD HAVE added some of the other alternatives, but didn't?
The argument you presented is the argument you presented. You can't fall back on other arguments that you could have, but didn't, present.
By the same logic, try this:
Shoot someone and then say "Officer - I didn't really shoot that person because I COULD HAVE gone fishing instead".
Yes, of course, but if you bring a half-assed product to the market to replace a competitor's offer in your platform, your product better be better than the competition or you must be prepared for the complaints. This is what the Apple fanboys don't get; people complain about Apple Maps because Apple replaced the existing Google Maps app with it, therefore Apple is fully deserving of all the bad press they've been receiving.
Dude, you're denying reality now! I lack arguments? How can you make such a claim? What is it that I did not successfully refute for you to claim that I lack arguments? I'm asking questions; why aren't you answering them?
Using your own words against you: Why are you dodging my questions? You claim that I lost the argument, I lost where and and you gave no answer, thus not satisfying your burden of proof. How come, then, do you claim that I am the one without arguments?
Really, tell me, because I want to believe that you are not a complete retard!
That's not true. He doesn't completely lack arguments. He only lacks good arguments.
For example, he presented the argument that no matter how ridiculous his arguments are, they are still valid because he COULD HAVE presented a different argument.
That part is true.
Speaking of dodging questions:
Apple's Maps has x number of errors.
Google's Maps has y number of errors.
You have been consistently claiming that Apple's Maps is not as good as Google's Maps because of the number of errors (which is the entire point of this thread). For that claim to be correct, you must have evidence that x > y. So where is the evidence and what are x and y?
I'm still waiting for you to answer my previous reply to you, where I refuted everythyng you said.
This is a lie. If you think otherwise, prove me wrong with a quote.
It is clear to me, at this point, that both of you are ignoring my posts simply because you can not refute them, which is why you are replying to each other rather than me.
No, I have not. Cite the comment where I did it or accept defeat. This is a straw man fallacy.
Originally Posted by Vaelian
This is what the Apple fanboys don't get; people complain about Apple Maps because Apple replaced the existing Google Maps app with it, therefore Apple is fully deserving of all the bad press they've been receiving.
Or maybe they don't get why people would ever think this, given that users can still get to Google Maps, have the same features, and are therefore not deserving of the bad press.
Or maybe this has already been posted and I have already refuted it twice in this thread... For starters it doesn't even make sense to consider Google Maps on the web because the service already existed before Apple Maps, so nothing was gained or lost there. Secondly, Google Maps on the web is not tightly integrated with iOS like the app was, and on top of that has issues such as the maps not rotating, the cursor requiring a reliable network connection to move (otherwise it jumps around), the lack of Street View, and the inability to save dropped pins.
Originally Posted by Vaelian
…nothing was… …lost…
Isn't this the crux of your entire argument? And yet it's still there.
Contest that if you will, but what you can't is the fact that things have been gained. maps.google.com is more functional than ever before, and it's a fine supplement to Apple Maps.
You've not lost anything.
Originally Posted by Vaelian
…the lack of Street View…
Hmm…
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Yes, but it's not as simple as you suggest. The fundamental problem is that the region and the city have the same name. When you type 'Mildura', it assumes you want the region and sends you to the middle of the region. If you type 'Mildura city', it sends you to the city. If you type a street address, it takes you to the street address.
For something familiar to Americans, look up cities which have their state names:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_states_have_a_city_with_the_same_name
I tried 'Utah' and 'Delaware'. In both cases, the word took me to the middle of the state, NOT the city. Apparently, when given the choice between a city and a state with the same name, Maps chooses the state - which is what it did in Mildura, too. I don't think that's unreasonable behavior.
There is one exception, though: New York. When you simply enter 'New York', it takes you to the city. Presumably, they chose to override the standard 'select the state rather than the city when both have the same name' rule because of the size and population of New York City.
It's not at all clear that it's an error - just confusion caused by the use of a city and a region with the same name.
You really need to stop generalising America to the rest of the world. In Australia, we have shires and towns. In this instance, towns are called towns, shires are called shires. The town is called Mildura, the shire is called 'The Rural City of Mildura' - very different. Some shires have similar names, others don't.
Stop acting like you're an Australian expert, you look like a fool. You keep saying things that simply is not true for Australia. And you keep making justifications that are inaccurate...
More importantly, as I said before (which you completely ignored) why did this take so long to fix? Why is Apple so ridiculously slow at fixing things?
If you actually jump on your Apple Maps, and type in "Seymour, Mooroopna, Tallarook, Craigieburn, Broadmeadows, Kyabram, Tatura, Rushworth, Congupna, Cobram" and there are COUNTLESS more... they don't have location markers on the map. If you were to randomly scroll over The state of Victoria, you'd think it was largely uninhabited. Yet, it's a thriving state which is the more densely populated state in Australia. Also, when typing in these locations, many of locations Apple use are inaccurate.
In particular, type in Rushworth, it'll take to you to the middle of Waranga Basin, yep, apparently this town is in a lake? And guess what genius? The shire for this town is called Campaspe? So based on speculation, you'd be wrong.
Apple have made really bad Maps in Australia, especially compared to maps in iOS5.
The are so bad for regional users, they're practically unusable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
No, the number of posts here represent a relatively small number of people who are not what you'd call typical Apple consumers - they're mostly techies or Android/Google fans.
Incidentally, it turns out that the problem was caused by a POI problem. Apple was using data provided by the Australian Gazetteer, the official go-to guide for this type of information. Yes, the dataset came from the state of Victoria itself. Which brings me back to my original point: the problem is the data, not the app, and this will not be discovered until it is actually used. If the state of Victoria can't provide correct geographical data then that won't be fixed by 'testing' Map applications inside a bunker.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/10/apple_maps_ghost_mildura/
We've heard it said many times before, why would this guy drive into the wilderness with one lot of mapping information? Why wouldn't he check more than one source? The same should hold true for Apple! Why didn't they check other mapping providers?
But in all honesty, I don't think this was the reason the mapping information was incorrect, because there are so many other towns in the wrong place.
Also, the dataset came from the Australian Government (if this information is indeed true), not the state of Victoria.
And the dataset is accurate, because the location marker is simply stating the Shire name, which is the 'Rural City of Mildura'. So realistically, Apple made an assumption that the Rural City of Mildura was a town, not a Shire.
Maybe you should settle down and read what I wrote before launching into your nasty comments. I never professed to be an expert for Australia. Nor does your post indicate that anything I said was wrong.
Call them shires, towns, villages, metropolises, empires, or sietches. It doesn't matter. The point is that when a larger area and a smaller area have the same name, and the user enters only the name (without being more specific), Apple Maps shows the center of the larger area. My example was something that would be recognizable to Americans - if you enter 'Utah', it moves you to the center of the state, even though there's a city called 'Utah'. If you enter 'Delaware', it shows you the center of the state, even though there's a Delaware City.
So it doesn't matter whether you call it a town, shire, or anything else. Apple's Map is doing the same thing for Mildura that it does for locations in the US (other than New York for some reason). When you type simply 'Mildura', it assumes you want the larger area (province, town, state, whatever). When you type 'Mildura City', it gives you the location of what most people refer to as a town or village or city and which you want to call a shire or "the rural city of Mildura".
Nothing I posted was inaccurate, nor did anything I posted claim to make me an expert. I was discussing the general principle, not the specific names you choose to call geographic subdivisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Maybe you should settle down and read what I wrote before launching into your nasty comments. I never professed to be an expert for Australia. Nor does your post indicate that anything I said was wrong.
Call them shires, towns, villages, metropolises, empires, or sietches. It doesn't matter. The point is that when a larger area and a smaller area have the same name, and the user enters only the name (without being more specific), Apple Maps shows the center of the larger area. My example was something that would be recognizable to Americans - if you enter 'Utah', it moves you to the center of the state, even though there's a city called 'Utah'. If you enter 'Delaware', it shows you the center of the state, even though there's a Delaware City.
So it doesn't matter whether you call it a town, shire, or anything else. Apple's Map is doing the same thing for Mildura that it does for locations in the US (other than New York for some reason). When you type simply 'Mildura', it assumes you want the larger area (province, town, state, whatever). When you type 'Mildura City', it gives you the location of what most people refer to as a town or village or city and which you want to call a shire or "the rural city of Mildura".
Nothing I posted was inaccurate, nor did anything I posted claim to make me an expert. I was discussing the general principle, not the specific names you choose to call geographic subdivisions.
Don't get caught up on semantics, mate.
You are wrong though, and you are ignorant. I explained to you very clearly that Midura is the town, the 'Rural City of Mildura' is the shire. Based on your logic, typing in Mildura City should give you Shire, since that's what it's called. They are different names.
Gotta love how you ignored the rest of the post, which clearly illustrates Apple's incompetency in relation to mapping, in Regional Australia Areas.
"As I previous stated: In particular, type in Rushworth, it'll take to you to the middle of Waranga Basin, yep, apparently this town is in a lake? And guess what genius? The shire for this town is called Campaspe? So based on speculation, you'd be wrong."
I stand by this, you are making the assumption that 'Mildura' and 'Rural City of Mildura' are the same thing.
You can tell me all the princples you want, that's fantastic, but they don't work downunder, because our shires and towns have different names.
Nope, that's quoting out of context, a fallacy, which also tells me that you are trolling, so all I'll do from this point forward will be to nitpick on the logic of your posts.
That point actually reinforces my argument, so thanks. Google giving me back things that Apple took from me justifies the double standard against Apple.
Only because I have not upgraded yet. Had I upgraded, I would actually have lost the native and tightly integrated Google Maps app. Of course, this has already been mentioned...
Thank you for supporting my argument! Google deserves all the credit for going out of their way to serve me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
But I still would like to know why Apple feels it needs to be in the mapping business. It's not something you can do quickly or on the cheap. Are the only options Google maps or Apple doing their own solution?
Do you think they shouldn't be?
Are you implying that it's somehow unjustified for Apple to be in the mapping business when Microsoft and Yahoo and Google are doing it too?
Apple was in the mapping business since the first iPhone shipped with the Maps app. In the same sense that they are in the phone and camera business because these features are also a core part of the iPhone, and Apple's customers use of their iPhones for making phone calls, taking pictures, and looking at maps. Apple also provide APIs for third-party apps to display maps and use geolocation features of the OS. If they want to evolve the features of mapping, they should own the backend mapping services too. They just switched from Google's data to Tom Tom's data, and presumably moved the mapping servers from Google's data center to Apple's. While there are "other solutions" (such as using Bing mapping servers), why would Apple move from depending on Google to depending on Microsoft?
Routing from where? What is wrong with the route? I am not familiar with the territory, but looking at a route from Melbourne to Mildura -- it looks pretty reasonable to me.
You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. And then, stop accusing me of things I never said. For example, I never commented on Campaspe or Waranga.
So before you start sarcastically calling people 'genius', you should learn to read.