You may be the insane one. Why did they just announce adding vector for android unless they went backwards and decided to return. And they announced flyover days before Apple's announcement after all of the leaks said what Apple was going to announce. Notice how long it took to copy it. They were just trying to divert attention.
Actually they were holding Apple, who helped them improve their mobile maps, back by limiting them to tile based maps. Google did not have vectors as a part of the OS until 6 months after Apple's maps were released. Their developers were being limited just like Apple was. http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/12/android-apps-get-vector-maps/
You obviously didn't read the article.
Google has just announced the new Google Maps API that will let Android developers use the same vector-based data that Google Maps has been using for some time.
But was it available on iOS that long ago or just Android like turn by turn?
You have to remember that the iOS maps app was built by Apple using Google's map data. Is there any proof that Apple requested to include turn by turn and was told no?
"[B]Is there any proof that Apple requested to include turn by turn and was told no?"[/B]
Tim said in an interview that one of the reasons they rushed out the new Apple maps wa so they could add turn by turn directions. I'll bet there was some kind of restriction in the original agreement that Google held them too. Google probably figured that was a great marketing point for Android and there was nothing Apple could do. I think they severely underestimated how much Apple hates to be dicked by software vendors.
That is not enough. People need to voice their concern with the FTC. Google, Tom Tom, Navteq, and Waze are the only US companies with mapping data. Google taking over one of those companies does not benefit consumers.
Tim said in an interview that one of the reasons they rushed out the new Apple maps wa so they could add turn by turn directions. I'll bet there was some kind of restriction in the original agreement that Google held them too. Google probably figured that was a great marketing point for Android and there was nothing Apple could do. I think they severely underestimated how much Apple hates to be dicked by software vendors.
How does a 'restriction in the original agreement' (if there was one) equate to being 'dicked'?
The shitty version they released for iOS did not have that until Apple kicked them out and they crawled back with an updated version they should have released years ago.
Listen mate, Google are just another advertising business who track people for money, there is no reason to defend everything they do like a doe eyed teenage girl at a one direction concert.
I have the New Beta Google Maps. I experimented with it for about a week but then lost interest -- it is somewhere loosely between old Google Maps and Google Earth -- not particularly well implemented or very exciting compared to the current OSX apps.
IMO, Apple Maps on an iPad is superior to both.
Early this AM, I installed OSX Maverick. Apple Maps on the desktop blows all of them away (even iOS 6 Maps on an iPad 4).... You just can't compare the ease, beauty and fun of Apple 3D Flyover with anything else out there... Nothing comes close!
I'm also a beta tester on the new Google Maps. Honestly, I hate what they've done. It's far less user friendly and I abandoned it after less than one day of use.
I'm actually a bit jealous you have Mavericks. (people need to get used to including that "s")
You have to remember that the iOS maps app was built by Apple using Google's map data. Is there any proof that Apple requested to include turn by turn and was told no?
Why wouldn't Apple want that? Google probably demanded more user data and more ads space in the app.
Google had vector maps on Android way before Apple used it, and most 'satellite' views were from a flyover, and vectoring wasn't in the iPhone maps app because Apple chose for it not to be until they made their own app.
Satellite views =/= Flyover,
Also, source? Or were you there in the back room meetings?
You have to remember that the iOS maps app was built by Apple using Google's map data. Is there any proof that Apple requested to include turn by turn and was told no?
Re: "granularity"? On my iPhone 5 the line weight is proportional to the traffic interuption. At least that's what I see on highway routes, which are my main commuting routes of interest. Nope, just took a peek at a surface street section and there's differing red line-weights there as well.
Hmmm, I haven't noticed any differences in the line weights (I use an iPad 3). I guess my issue is that the Apple Maps don't have the equivalent of the green line shown by Google Maps. Those road segments on Apple Maps with no traffic lines either mean free flow traffic or no data. There's no easy way to differentiate.
According to the people on this site, anything that isn't first to market in any category is a copy. If Google was first to market in mobile mapping then Apple copied Google. If it was Nokia then that was who Apple copied.
Comments
'Both times'. The first and last, you mean?
That's what Glass can do to you!
Amazing isn't it? Google implemented cookies. "Cookies!" I say!
You obviously didn't read the article.
But was it available on iOS that long ago or just Android like turn by turn?
You have to remember that the iOS maps app was built by Apple using Google's map data. Is there any proof that Apple requested to include turn by turn and was told no?
And after announcement, 20-30 Mill, after ads and messing with program, 5-10Mill.
Well, off to look for alternative app's... I'm going to miss my crown...
Tim said in an interview that one of the reasons they rushed out the new Apple maps wa so they could add turn by turn directions. I'll bet there was some kind of restriction in the original agreement that Google held them too. Google probably figured that was a great marketing point for Android and there was nothing Apple could do. I think they severely underestimated how much Apple hates to be dicked by software vendors.
That is not enough. People need to voice their concern with the FTC. Google, Tom Tom, Navteq, and Waze are the only US companies with mapping data. Google taking over one of those companies does not benefit consumers.
How does a 'restriction in the original agreement' (if there was one) equate to being 'dicked'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan
You're head isn't that deeply buried in the sand is it?
Google announced the 'flyover' before apple did (http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=22411)
Google has had vector based maps since 2010 (http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2010/12/07/google-maps-5-0-for-android-goes-vector-for-faster-loading-zoom/)
You guys are all insane.
The shitty version they released for iOS did not have that until Apple kicked them out and they crawled back with an updated version they should have released years ago.
Listen mate, Google are just another advertising business who track people for money, there is no reason to defend everything they do like a doe eyed teenage girl at a one direction concert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I have the New Beta Google Maps. I experimented with it for about a week but then lost interest -- it is somewhere loosely between old Google Maps and Google Earth -- not particularly well implemented or very exciting compared to the current OSX apps.
IMO, Apple Maps on an iPad is superior to both.
Early this AM, I installed OSX Maverick. Apple Maps on the desktop blows all of them away (even iOS 6 Maps on an iPad 4).... You just can't compare the ease, beauty and fun of Apple 3D Flyover with anything else out there... Nothing comes close!
I'm also a beta tester on the new Google Maps. Honestly, I hate what they've done. It's far less user friendly and I abandoned it after less than one day of use.
I'm actually a bit jealous you have Mavericks. (people need to get used to including that "s")
They paid 12.5B for Moto mob.
Why wouldn't Apple want that? Google probably demanded more user data and more ads space in the app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Mercedes updates even the S Class. And you're a fool if you think that Google maps is a copy of Apple maps since the Apple version is the copy.
Copy of what?
Nokia maps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Google had vector maps on Android way before Apple used it, and most 'satellite' views were from a flyover, and vectoring wasn't in the iPhone maps app because Apple chose for it not to be until they made their own app.
Satellite views =/= Flyover,
Also, source? Or were you there in the back room meetings?
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelraven
Google maps is getting better and better. I don't see why all the hate towards google.
You don't see why all the hate toward Google? For real? Hint: It's not about *maps* part but *Google* part.
On topic.
Deleted from mine also. Can't wait for Maverick's Send Direction To My iPhone.
I take that as it wasn't on iOS then.
Well it is now from Apple and Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
But was it available on iOS that long ago or just Android like turn by turn?
That's the part that annoyed me: while understandable that bias towards "their" OS supported devices chafed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
Re: "granularity"? On my iPhone 5 the line weight is proportional to the traffic interuption. At least that's what I see on highway routes, which are my main commuting routes of interest. Nope, just took a peek at a surface street section and there's differing red line-weights there as well.
Hmmm, I haven't noticed any differences in the line weights (I use an iPad 3). I guess my issue is that the Apple Maps don't have the equivalent of the green line shown by Google Maps. Those road segments on Apple Maps with no traffic lines either mean free flow traffic or no data. There's no easy way to differentiate.
According to the people on this site, anything that isn't first to market in any category is a copy. If Google was first to market in mobile mapping then Apple copied Google. If it was Nokia then that was who Apple copied.