I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.
Street View is great, but only gives you a view of a very small area and only from the ground level. A fully interactive 3D view can give you a unique understanding of a broader area with lots of tall structures such as skyscrapers.
If you've trying to find your way around Gainesville you won't need 3D view, but then you don't really need street view either.
Try to get a sense of place in Manhattan and you will appreciate Apple's Flyover.
Street View is great, but only gives you a view of a very small area and only from the ground level. A fully interactive 3D view can give you a unique understanding of an area with lots of tall structures such as skyscrapers.
If you've trying to find your way around Gainesville you won't need 3D view, but then you don't really need street view either.
Try to get a sense of place in Manhattan and you will appreciate Apple's Flyover.
I already have a comprehensive view of any city with all maps app. What I want with a StreetView-like service is to literally get a "street view" that can give me not only a perspective but specific data form eye level.
I already have a comprehensive view of any city with all maps app. What I want with a StreetView-like service is to literally get a "street view" that can give me not only a perspective but specific data form eye level.
You can't fly around a city and view buildings seamlessly from any angle using Google.
If you're just focused on finding a street address that's fine, but Apple Maps let you do more than that. Whatever functionality is missing now will come later.
I look at Apple Maps now like I looked at the first iPhone. It was missing a ton of stuff but the unique things it delivered were way ahead of everyone else. What started as a crappy 2 megapixel camera is now one of the best and most used consumer cameras in the country. Give them some time. In the mean time nothing prevents you from using a competing map product when necessary.
You can't fly around a city and view buildings seamlessly from any angle using Google.
If you're just focused on finding a street address that's fine, but Apple Maps let you do more than that. Whatever functionality is missing now will come later.
I look at Apple Maps now like I looked at the first iPhone. It was missing a ton of stuff but the unique things it delivered were way ahead of everyone else. What started as a crappy 2 megapixel camera is now one of the best and most used consumer cameras in the country. Give them some time.
I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.
I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.
100% serious. Google profits from Apple users, Windows users, mobile, desktop . . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that? Google is primarily services as is Microsoft. Apple is primarily hardware.
100% serious. Google profits from Apple devices, Windows devices, mobile, desktop. . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that?
Google's business model is the exact opposite of Apple's.
Google is focused on delivering advanced cloud services that can be accessed on any dumb device (for "free" since the users are the product.)
Apple is focused on delivering an ecosystem of sophisticated devices while leveraging dumb, ubiquitous, interchangeable cloud storage services. The product isn't artificially cheap, because there's no hidden business model in trafficking their customer's personal data.
Each company is ferociously trying to promote what they're good at while cheapening what their competitor offers. At least that's the case now, since Google started the war with Android's targeting of the iPhone.
Google is dominant in web search, but that dominance eroding as the world moves from desktop to mobile... And since Google declared war on Apple, Apple is more than happy to exploit that vulnerability. Expect to see Google services increasingly marginalized by Apple.
I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.
I used 3D flyover when I bought my house. It was great to get an overall view of neighborhoods I was thinking about, where the parks and trails were, how the roads were laid out and so on. I used it the other day when trying to find out where my daughters astronomy club was meeting at the university (I had never been there) and the satellite view wasn't very helpful. That said, I don't use it often, but when I do it's very useful.
My kids also use it a lot to explore other cities around the world for class projects. Satellite images of the Eiffel Tower just don't cut it, nor do they give you any sense of grandeur.
I used 3D flyover when I bought my house. It was great to get an overall view of neighborhoods I was thinking about, where the parks and trails were, how the roads were laid out and so on. I used it the other day when trying to find out where my daughters astronomy club was meeting at the university (I had never been there) and the satellite view wasn't very helpful. That said, I don't use it often, but when I do it's very useful.
My kids also use it a lot to explore other cities around the world for class projects. Satellite images of the Eiffel Tower just don't cut it, nor do they give you any sense of grandeur.
Interesting uses, but I still contend that a StreetView-like service has more real world uses.
Internal politics is what has damaged Microsoft for many years. I hope this isn't going to be the future at Apple too.
I think that's an entirely valid concern, but as they say, "enjoy the sausage, but you don't want know how the sausage gets made."
I've collected and read anecdotes, articles, abs books written about Apple over the years, and conclude that:
1. Organizational issues are not uncommon when organizations reach a certain size
2. Apple can be a very stressful, but rewarding place to work, but the experience varies from person to person
3. Apple holds people accountable for results
4. Apple is internally very secretive
5. It isn't a 'fun' place to work like Google
The thing is: these aren't recent developments. This could describe Apple circa 1984, 1994, 2004 or 2014. I'm not sure this will sink Apple. For Apple or any large company to succeed, it takes good leadership to keep the "base of the organization pyramid" focused and moving in the right direction.
I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.
Instead of addressing the issue that Google has serious issues with its version of 3D maps, you try to minimize their usefulness and thereby turn a Google negative into an Apple negative. Bravo.
Still kinda funny that of all the problems Apple Maps had at the beginning, the most common complaint was with 3D maps. All the pictures the trolls continually repost are of this single feature. I wonder why that is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
100% serious. Google profits from Apple users, Windows users, mobile, desktop . . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that? Google is primarily services as is Microsoft. Apple is primarily hardware.
Let's see, increasing the price of Google Drive even though storage prices are actually dropping? Or reducing the number of accounts you get with Google Apps For Business? Giving away Android as a "free" OS and then go about locking it down so that it's 100% under Google control (Google Play Services)?
This is Google's MO. Offer something really useful for free (or dirt cheap), and once enough people are "locked in", then go about increasing the rates or locking it down. Who's to say that if Apple stuck with Google Maps that at some point in the future Google changes their terms and starts charging Apple more for access? Or places limits on what Apple can access so that Android users always get the best experience on Google Maps? It's not like Google has NEVER done anything like that before. /S
I think much of the overly clean 3D models Apple has are a result of showing off a gimmick wherever it counts most, like the Hoover Dam. It's not useful for navigation, but it looks pretty. Apple WANTS people to be only pointing to the pretty models, NOT the actual foundation of the product.
Apple should stick to its core competencies. They should not be in the map business. Mapping is not an easy thing to do.
owning their primary use case tech stack is indeed their core competency. being dependent on google for getting hand-me-down features from android was a dead-end.
keep in mind they still license the actual mapping data, they arent collecting it themselves as cartographers.
If that was a valid business philosophy then Google would still be just a search engine (and nothing more) and Apple would have never made notebooks, phones, music players etc. Just stuck with their desktop
It's a variation of the "Google doesn't need competition; only Apple needs competition" philosophy.
Each company is ferociously trying to promote what they're good at while cheapening what their competitor offers. At least that's the case now, since Google started the war with Android's targeting of the iPhone.
Google is dominant in web search, but that dominance eroding as the world moves from desktop to mobile... And since Google declared war on Apple, Apple is more than happy to exploit that vulnerability. Expect to see Google services increasingly marginalized by Apple.
Google didn't declare war on Apple nor was Android an anti-iPhone development. Android was planned by Google to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans, before Apple had even announced they were building a smartphone. . Even DED acknowledges that.
Google didn't declare war on Apple nor was Android an anti-iPhone development. Android was planned by Google to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans, before Apple had even announced they were building a smartphone. . Even DED acknowledges that.
But as soon as the iPhone was announced they did switch gears to go after the iPhone.
Google didn't declare war on Apple nor was Android an anti-iPhone development. Android was planned by Google to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans, before Apple had even announced they were building a smartphone. . Even DED acknowledges that.
I seem to remember Google rewriting history stating they didn't want to the future of mobile tech being decidedly one man (Jobs) or one company (Apple).
Comments
I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.
Street View is great, but only gives you a view of a very small area and only from the ground level. A fully interactive 3D view can give you a unique understanding of a broader area with lots of tall structures such as skyscrapers.
If you've trying to find your way around Gainesville you won't need 3D view, but then you don't really need street view either.
Try to get a sense of place in Manhattan and you will appreciate Apple's Flyover.
I already have a comprehensive view of any city with all maps app. What I want with a StreetView-like service is to literally get a "street view" that can give me not only a perspective but specific data form eye level.
I already have a comprehensive view of any city with all maps app. What I want with a StreetView-like service is to literally get a "street view" that can give me not only a perspective but specific data form eye level.
You can't fly around a city and view buildings seamlessly from any angle using Google.
If you're just focused on finding a street address that's fine, but Apple Maps let you do more than that. Whatever functionality is missing now will come later.
I look at Apple Maps now like I looked at the first iPhone. It was missing a ton of stuff but the unique things it delivered were way ahead of everyone else. What started as a crappy 2 megapixel camera is now one of the best and most used consumer cameras in the country. Give them some time. In the mean time nothing prevents you from using a competing map product when necessary.
I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.
My sources tell me techcrunch source are bogus.!
I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.
Not everyone has a helicopter.
100% serious. Google profits from Apple users, Windows users, mobile, desktop . . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that? Google is primarily services as is Microsoft. Apple is primarily hardware.
100% serious. Google profits from Apple devices, Windows devices, mobile, desktop. . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that?
Google's business model is the exact opposite of Apple's.
Each company is ferociously trying to promote what they're good at while cheapening what their competitor offers. At least that's the case now, since Google started the war with Android's targeting of the iPhone.
Google is dominant in web search, but that dominance eroding as the world moves from desktop to mobile... And since Google declared war on Apple, Apple is more than happy to exploit that vulnerability. Expect to see Google services increasingly marginalized by Apple.
I don't use any map app for sightseeing. They are just tools to locating a path or specific location information which is why I see FlyOver as a gimmicky feature. If I want to go sightseeing I'll charter a helicopter not play with my Maps app.
I used 3D flyover when I bought my house. It was great to get an overall view of neighborhoods I was thinking about, where the parks and trails were, how the roads were laid out and so on. I used it the other day when trying to find out where my daughters astronomy club was meeting at the university (I had never been there) and the satellite view wasn't very helpful. That said, I don't use it often, but when I do it's very useful.
My kids also use it a lot to explore other cities around the world for class projects. Satellite images of the Eiffel Tower just don't cut it, nor do they give you any sense of grandeur.
Interesting uses, but I still contend that a StreetView-like service has more real world uses.
I think that's an entirely valid concern, but as they say, "enjoy the sausage, but you don't want know how the sausage gets made."
I've collected and read anecdotes, articles, abs books written about Apple over the years, and conclude that:
1. Organizational issues are not uncommon when organizations reach a certain size
2. Apple can be a very stressful, but rewarding place to work, but the experience varies from person to person
3. Apple holds people accountable for results
4. Apple is internally very secretive
5. It isn't a 'fun' place to work like Google
The thing is: these aren't recent developments. This could describe Apple circa 1984, 1994, 2004 or 2014. I'm not sure this will sink Apple. For Apple or any large company to succeed, it takes good leadership to keep the "base of the organization pyramid" focused and moving in the right direction.
I don't see much added value from 3D view anyway, no matter the provider. A view I'd typically see if I was driving/walking is more useful to me unless I'm scoping out the terrain for a hike or fishing trip. Even then a standard satellite view is what I want. Just don't really get the importance of a 3D view over a "street-view-like" or overhead terrain view.
Instead of addressing the issue that Google has serious issues with its version of 3D maps, you try to minimize their usefulness and thereby turn a Google negative into an Apple negative. Bravo.
Still kinda funny that of all the problems Apple Maps had at the beginning, the most common complaint was with 3D maps. All the pictures the trolls continually repost are of this single feature. I wonder why that is?
100% serious. Google profits from Apple users, Windows users, mobile, desktop . . . You think they want to harm Apple? How would they benefit from that? Google is primarily services as is Microsoft. Apple is primarily hardware.
Let's see, increasing the price of Google Drive even though storage prices are actually dropping? Or reducing the number of accounts you get with Google Apps For Business? Giving away Android as a "free" OS and then go about locking it down so that it's 100% under Google control (Google Play Services)?
This is Google's MO. Offer something really useful for free (or dirt cheap), and once enough people are "locked in", then go about increasing the rates or locking it down. Who's to say that if Apple stuck with Google Maps that at some point in the future Google changes their terms and starts charging Apple more for access? Or places limits on what Apple can access so that Android users always get the best experience on Google Maps? It's not like Google has NEVER done anything like that before. /S
Apple should stick to its core competencies. They should not be in the map business. Mapping is not an easy thing to do.
owning their primary use case tech stack is indeed their core competency. being dependent on google for getting hand-me-down features from android was a dead-end.
keep in mind they still license the actual mapping data, they arent collecting it themselves as cartographers.
It's a variation of the "Google doesn't need competition; only Apple needs competition" philosophy.
Google didn't declare war on Apple nor was Android an anti-iPhone development. Android was planned by Google to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans, before Apple had even announced they were building a smartphone. . Even DED acknowledges that.
But as soon as the iPhone was announced they did switch gears to go after the iPhone.
I seem to remember Google rewriting history stating they didn't want to the future of mobile tech being decidedly one man (Jobs) or one company (Apple).