It's actually an incredibly smart approach because it not only delegates transit expertise to local app vendors (or the agencies themselves), but also works with any other conceivable system for routing, including bike paths or off road hiking; air/sea connections, even conceivably campus directions & routing. All sorts of things that Apple couldn't begin to care about itself.
It's a plug-in architecture. Arguing that Apple should go out and build custom transit routing solutions for every city on earth fails to comprehend that Google has tried to do this and ended up doing a poor job in many places (and is barred from certain markets by governments or its own policy). Lots of cities where Google Transit simply doesn't work, and it does a terrible job routing between most cities.
I agree that it's better to delegate transit directions to third-party apps when you lack the data do provide them yourself. But clearly there are compelling advantages for integrating directions into Apple's own mapping app. Otherwise, why did Apple go through the trouble of sourcing its own mapping data to integrate turn-by-turn driving directions? Why did it choose not to stay with Google's data and hand off driving directions to third-party apps like it's doing now with transit? The latter approach might have caused less PR trouble, so Apple must have judged that the benefits of integrated directions outweigh the costs.
For how much you hate Android you sure don't seem to know much about it (or willing to do even a basic search to see if your baseless claims have merit).
One feature that Apple maps apparently lacks and Google maps has really is important to me. With Google maps, the voice directions will override any audio playing in my car and play the directions through Bluetooth. I can't figure out how to do that with Apple maps.
I love the apple maps interface and presentation, along with the flyover where its available. However there is a lot of work that need to go in to their location data and search. I double check my destination in Google maps and use Apple navigation when its correct. I hope Apple would gets the location info and search straightened up in iOS7.
And here it is on Google maps - exact same location, adjacent to Boundary Road:
Well I'll be damned. I swear to you, when I tried to bring it up last week I got an empty area where Marquette should be. Three Cedars Drive and Champlain were there, but no Marquette. You're right, it came up when I tried it just now. Maybe there was a glitch in the rendering when I tried before.
Your copy and paste routine has some issues. First off, Apple Maps aren't restricted to working in the US. I've driven across Europe with them. They work better than Google's when you're working offline, including when you roam into a country where you don't have data service. Apple's vectors continue to work a very long ways without service, while Google's vectors simply don't, and I don't think Google's iOS app supports offline maps yet, making the problem worse to impossible.
Google has some strong search advantages, and has better maps in some places, but it just lost the majority of half of all smarpthones in iOS 6. Apple now has a premium user installed base, so guess whose maps are going to get better, faster? Google also throws up ads in your maps app, which sucks balls.
I don't agree with you.
Even though you are right about the vectors, which are much better in Apple's Maps, I was able to cache a route from Lisbon to London by car with Google Maps.
Also, I planned a route to Lisbon last week using three different GPS systems (Peugeot, Apple and Google), and Google's was by far the most accurate one. Not to mention when Apple's Maps took me to places that do not exist.
I love Apple's products (at least the ones that work), but this one doesn't work yet. It is extremely well designed (it is Apple afterall), but it doesn't work. There are better things out there right now.
I really like the presentation and underlying technology of Apple Maps, and the changes here further cement that. The new Google Maps presentation is fussy and unstructured; little tags and widgets poking in from the edges of the screen with no context provided regarding their purpose. The boring kind of flat design. Abstracted, yet still managing to be over-ornamented.
The points of interest data in Apple Maps is really lacking though. Most of the partners like Yelp and OpenTable are not known or popular locally. Of the specific local issues I've reported, only one has been fixed (involved directions to drive off a 4-metre embankment).
Apple need to move swiftly on "ground truthing" and start bringing POI data in house. I've just noticed local building footprints in the vector map view so I know someone is toiling away. But are there enough of them?
This last weekend I was travelling to a house warming and Siri literally directed me to a place four blocks away from the correct location. And I'm not talking New York blocks. This was a good ten minutes by foot. In all fairness Google Maps also pointed to the wrong apartment complex, but at least it had the correct block. It's understandable, but that doesn't stop it from being inconvenient.
This is still hinting a mavericks Siri but mostly limited to 2013 devices and later (like 2012 for IOS devices).
Siri is currently web/networked based so I song see Macs getting it unless all of the processing happen off-network on your device.
Macs don't have the luxury of being constantly connected like the iPhone. That's also why the Maps app isn't for turn by turn. It's mainly to look up a route and then send it to your mobile device.
Do we all have to start saying "chrome" in place of "UI" now?
It's a nice thorough piece, but the author seemed genuinely offended by the current search and status bars. Sitting there, mocking me with that gradient! Boo skeumorphism! Which moron coded exit signs that look like exit signs? And showing the current time and signal level is just fifteen wasted pixels.
I know that minimalism is in right now, but when it comes to driving up to 80 MPH in heavy traffic, I actually prefer a bold UI that can be read quickly. Crazy, right?
TBell
Apple's only real weakness in the US, seems to be its reliance on Yelp for POI data. Yelp is real slow updating stuff.
Not to mention it's basically a protection racket, like the Better Business Bureau. Yelp gives small businesses fake one-star reviews that can't be removed without paying a fee.
joseph_went_south
v5v
Shame they won't do me a damn bit of good since the information it supplies, or more accurately, DOESN'T supply, makes the entire app useless to me.
Bullshit! I live in Kelowna, and travel in and around Vancouver on a regular basis (twice monthly). Apple maps works GREAT. You're talking out of your hat.
Yep, it's impossible for a worldwide mapping database to have varying quality for different areas and POI. Apple Maps has consistent accuracy for every square mile on Earth. Just like AT&T's cell towers provide the same amount of signal everywhere.
[SIZE=6][/SIZE] I've seen ios 7. Nothing really fancy about it except the icons and some of the features. Hadn't played around on it though. Those who know someone who has a career in apple they can give you a download. I really was not impressed with ios 7..... Hopefully Apple will come up with something "WOW!" All the hints and leaks I've seen online about the new android phones.. Apple needs to step things up.:\
Siri is currently web/networked based so I song see Macs getting it unless all of the processing happen off-network on your device.
Uh... why, when all history points to the exact opposite?
Macs don't have the luxury of being constantly connected like the iPhone. That's also why the Maps app isn't for turn by turn.
So? Macs "aren't always connected": they still have Maps. And Safari. And every single other Internet option available. They don't have turn-by-turn because they don't have GPS chips. Maps is on every iDevice, even the "not always connected" Wi-Fi-only models. It's not turn-by-turn there.
Uh... why, when all history points to the exact opposite?
So? Macs "aren't always connected": they still have Maps. And Safari. And every single other Internet option available. They don't have turn-by-turn because they don't have GPS chips. Maps is on every iDevice, even the "not always connected" Wi-Fi-only models. It's not turn-by-turn there.
You've partially proved some of my points. But here's a simple question:
What's the point of Macs having Siri if Siri cant do basic task such as turn on Bluetooth when you're outside of a Wifi network?
Having Siri on a Mac could ruin the "just works" experience. That's why I said Siri would need to be able to process basic task without being connected to the Internet if it were to be a quality feature on the Mac.
What's the point of Macs having Siri if Siri cant do basic task such as turn on Bluetooth when you're outside of a Wifi network?
Having Siri on a Mac could ruin the "just works" experience.
And yet all iDevices have Siri. You don't have any points to prove; look at history, for heaven's sake. On-device processing isn't happening for years, and Apple doesn't care.
And yet all iDevices have Siri. You don't have any points to prove; look at history, for heaven's sake. On-device processing isn't happening for years, and Apple doesn't care.
Yes, of course, but they're choosing not to implement it because of the performance. This is Apple, after all.
It's faster for the user (and less of a drain on the battery of the device in question) to call out to a server than to process it on the iDevice itself. I'm certain Apple has done extensive testing on that. Until iDevices can be powerful enough to handle it on-device with the same quality as server-side, they won't.
Macs probably don't have that performance discrepancy, but, then again, dictation is done server-side, too. Of course, that might be simply to help build the Siri phoneme and tone library.
Also, we have to take into account that Apple probably wants it server-side for as long as they can manage, because as soon as you put the processing itself in the hands of users, they run the risk of their competitors stealing their tech. Again.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
It's actually an incredibly smart approach because it not only delegates transit expertise to local app vendors (or the agencies themselves), but also works with any other conceivable system for routing, including bike paths or off road hiking; air/sea connections, even conceivably campus directions & routing. All sorts of things that Apple couldn't begin to care about itself.
It's a plug-in architecture. Arguing that Apple should go out and build custom transit routing solutions for every city on earth fails to comprehend that Google has tried to do this and ended up doing a poor job in many places (and is barred from certain markets by governments or its own policy). Lots of cities where Google Transit simply doesn't work, and it does a terrible job routing between most cities.
I agree that it's better to delegate transit directions to third-party apps when you lack the data do provide them yourself. But clearly there are compelling advantages for integrating directions into Apple's own mapping app. Otherwise, why did Apple go through the trouble of sourcing its own mapping data to integrate turn-by-turn driving directions? Why did it choose not to stay with Google's data and hand off driving directions to third-party apps like it's doing now with transit? The latter approach might have caused less PR trouble, so Apple must have judged that the benefits of integrated directions outweigh the costs.
So you CAN use Apple maps on Android?
Cool body slam! Joseph!
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph_went_south
Here you go:
And here it is on Google maps - exact same location, adjacent to Boundary Road:
Well I'll be damned. I swear to you, when I tried to bring it up last week I got an empty area where Marquette should be. Three Cedars Drive and Champlain were there, but no Marquette. You're right, it came up when I tried it just now. Maybe there was a glitch in the rendering when I tried before.
I stand corrected. And pleased!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Your copy and paste routine has some issues. First off, Apple Maps aren't restricted to working in the US. I've driven across Europe with them. They work better than Google's when you're working offline, including when you roam into a country where you don't have data service. Apple's vectors continue to work a very long ways without service, while Google's vectors simply don't, and I don't think Google's iOS app supports offline maps yet, making the problem worse to impossible.
Google has some strong search advantages, and has better maps in some places, but it just lost the majority of half of all smarpthones in iOS 6. Apple now has a premium user installed base, so guess whose maps are going to get better, faster? Google also throws up ads in your maps app, which sucks balls.
I don't agree with you.
Even though you are right about the vectors, which are much better in Apple's Maps, I was able to cache a route from Lisbon to London by car with Google Maps.
Also, I planned a route to Lisbon last week using three different GPS systems (Peugeot, Apple and Google), and Google's was by far the most accurate one. Not to mention when Apple's Maps took me to places that do not exist.
I love Apple's products (at least the ones that work), but this one doesn't work yet. It is extremely well designed (it is Apple afterall), but it doesn't work. There are better things out there right now.
The points of interest data in Apple Maps is really lacking though. Most of the partners like Yelp and OpenTable are not known or popular locally. Of the specific local issues I've reported, only one has been fixed (involved directions to drive off a 4-metre embankment).
Apple need to move swiftly on "ground truthing" and start bringing POI data in house. I've just noticed local building footprints in the vector map view so I know someone is toiling away. But are there enough of them?
This last weekend I was travelling to a house warming and Siri literally directed me to a place four blocks away from the correct location. And I'm not talking New York blocks. This was a good ten minutes by foot. In all fairness Google Maps also pointed to the wrong apartment complex, but at least it had the correct block. It's understandable, but that doesn't stop it from being inconvenient.
Siri is currently web/networked based so I song see Macs getting it unless all of the processing happen off-network on your device.
Macs don't have the luxury of being constantly connected like the iPhone. That's also why the Maps app isn't for turn by turn. It's mainly to look up a route and then send it to your mobile device.
Do we all have to start saying "chrome" in place of "UI" now?
It's a nice thorough piece, but the author seemed genuinely offended by the current search and status bars. Sitting there, mocking me with that gradient! Boo skeumorphism! Which moron coded exit signs that look like exit signs? And showing the current time and signal level is just fifteen wasted pixels.
I know that minimalism is in right now, but when it comes to driving up to 80 MPH in heavy traffic, I actually prefer a bold UI that can be read quickly. Crazy, right?
TBell
Apple's only real weakness in the US, seems to be its reliance on Yelp for POI data. Yelp is real slow updating stuff.
Not to mention it's basically a protection racket, like the Better Business Bureau. Yelp gives small businesses fake one-star reviews that can't be removed without paying a fee.
joseph_went_south
v5v
Shame they won't do me a damn bit of good since the information it supplies, or more accurately, DOESN'T supply, makes the entire app useless to me.
Bullshit! I live in Kelowna, and travel in and around Vancouver on a regular basis (twice monthly). Apple maps works GREAT. You're talking out of your hat.
Yep, it's impossible for a worldwide mapping database to have varying quality for different areas and POI. Apple Maps has consistent accuracy for every square mile on Earth. Just like AT&T's cell towers provide the same amount of signal everywhere.
Uh... why, when all history points to the exact opposite?
So? Macs "aren't always connected": they still have Maps. And Safari. And every single other Internet option available. They don't have turn-by-turn because they don't have GPS chips. Maps is on every iDevice, even the "not always connected" Wi-Fi-only models. It's not turn-by-turn there.
I agree!
Idealistically, I would think that the United Nations Organization should be the responsible body...
Realistically, I think that the US Government (slightly less corrupt) is a better choice.
Yea, because economy and customer satisfaction are what government bureaus are known for.
Are you INSANE?!
You've partially proved some of my points. But here's a simple question:
What's the point of Macs having Siri if Siri cant do basic task such as turn on Bluetooth when you're outside of a Wifi network?
Having Siri on a Mac could ruin the "just works" experience. That's why I said Siri would need to be able to process basic task without being connected to the Internet if it were to be a quality feature on the Mac.
And yet all iDevices have Siri. You don't have any points to prove; look at history, for heaven's sake. On-device processing isn't happening for years, and Apple doesn't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And yet all iDevices have Siri. You don't have any points to prove; look at history, for heaven's sake. On-device processing isn't happening for years, and Apple doesn't care.
It's more accurate to say that on-device voice processing isn't happening because Apple is choosing not to implement it. The technology already exists; see for example http://www.phonearena.com/news/Googles-Voice-Search-now-lets-3rd-party-apps-use-offline-voice-recognition-privacy-buffs-rejoice_id39884
Yes, of course, but they're choosing not to implement it because of the performance. This is Apple, after all.
It's faster for the user (and less of a drain on the battery of the device in question) to call out to a server than to process it on the iDevice itself. I'm certain Apple has done extensive testing on that. Until iDevices can be powerful enough to handle it on-device with the same quality as server-side, they won't.
Macs probably don't have that performance discrepancy, but, then again, dictation is done server-side, too. Of course, that might be simply to help build the Siri phoneme and tone library.
Also, we have to take into account that Apple probably wants it server-side for as long as they can manage, because as soon as you put the processing itself in the hands of users, they run the risk of their competitors stealing their tech. Again.