Latko

asdasd said:

Also, because siri sucks. 

Pretty decent summary of 18 pages text,
touching the basics

Classical example of a poor survey with those non-exclusive choices. Most people are very well interested in (real) innovation if that is worth the price. Which apparently wasn't, but that opinion wasn't tested. The survey should have offered insight in the main issues of the X: FaceID is great technology waiting for a problem - which was already (disputedly better) solved by TouchID. Leaving animoji as the main trigger... And, as a blind squirrel could have expected, the notch isn't a positive discriminator. And a glass backside, while customers paid zillions to get better materials patented and implemented. So it would be interesting to learn if those were the disappointments that had pulled people off, or others.

Tim, this is the typical kind of saturated color photography that in which even your worst competitor would glorify...

The notch is a stupid idea, whatever Asian competitors do to emulate/copy/steal it. I wish it was really stolen (=> so it was gone)

gatorguy said:

Not a terribly revealing study, but perhaps interesting if you live in SanFran.

Not clear tho if he's saying Google Maps typically offers a faster route than Apple maps, particularly since he doesn't say it's not offering an accurate travel time, nor that of Waze either. Only that he's not arriving later than predicted by following Apple Map routing.

EDIT: OK it's clearer now after looking at the source. Google Maps is creating more time-efficient routes for him...
in San Francisco. 

"Adjusted for prediction errors, not only does Google Maps outperform its competitors, Waze is actually the worst performing of the three."

As I read it, this is about estimates, NOT route efficiency (which may even be contradictory)