Cartography Comparison: Google Maps and Apple Maps
justinobeirne.com
justinobeirne.com
Really great analysis. I wish it was a bit more succinct, but there's a lot of great information here. One thing that's not clear in each comparison is "which is better?"
The analysis seems to be indicating that the answer is "more", but I'm not entirely convinced that's correct in all cases.
That wasn't my read at all. What made you think that?
Apple is much more informative, but only where you have the time/energy to focus on the map, such as someone in the back of a taxi wanting to find some tiny location. Google is much easier to read at a glance, ie by someone actually doing something other then using the phone and needing the info to inform that task minute by minute.
(Going to Cluj from the south west of the mountains; that "road" was more a cattle lane unsuitable for bicycles, much less cars).
I assume/hope it is better now.
First I've heard someone say that about any Apple product.
Anyway, I read the post twice (it was good) and had trouble even finding bias. It reads more like a lab report than an opinion piece and he had criticisms of both maps.
Kinda can't believe he even worked on apple maps. The post was surprisingly fair.
Then again, I've been wrong countless times before.
Having said that, I agree: there's no way in hell Apple Maps could ever become a universal map.
I agree that apple's effort in developing maps has to scale over a smaller user base than google's efforts, which doesn't encourage the same level of investment. Plus apple doesn't appear to be able/willing to monetize their user's usage the way Google can/does which also increases google's incentive to do a good job.
Honestly, I really like and use many Apple products but I don't really understand their long term play.
Google Maps on the other hand, not only has turn-by-turn directions, but has even customized it to give directions the way they do it locally (using buildings and landmarks instead of streets where applicable).
If Apple Maps wants to become a Universal Map platform, they have a very long way to go.
I don't see it in their DNA to make these types of platforms.
Apple is the world's richest company - ´ if they really wanted to make maps work everywhere they could have.
Its simply not a priority for them (which is fine).
From a mapping capability standpoint, the two products are equals at the intercity level. (Google local directions are better at finding places)
But... Google is seemingly committed to making the maps app more obtuse to use as time goes on. So I find myself using Apple as my map app with Waze as a backup.
http://i.imgur.com/9kBV5o5.png
... is going to have anything insightful to say about a mapping application.
Yes, I get it. It's hard to make use of a display with a large number of pixels, especially when no two displays seem to have the same size and scale. But you know what? That's something you have to deal with in this business. You don't get to punt by removing or hiding every bit of information possible, or by presenting your thoughts an awkward single-column format inspired by some study or another that was conducted back in the newspaper era.
I know you can zoom by clicking on the image. That zoom is barely acceptable. That should have been the size of the image in the article, and clicking on them should zoom more and let me scroll.
Really didn't need to see 90% of the images. The article was so verbose, too, taking ten pages to conclude a simple arithmetic count of cities and road shields.
Didn't help that on my screen the content/white distribution was literally 30/70, like I'm running a mobile phone simulator on my laptop spent a minute in the CSS to change it.
Anyway this was a great first pass, although it feels to me like the least interesting. Why? Because maps start to really make or break as a utility tool, once you introduce some kind of goal, which has some level of interaction, configuration and changes to the map.
For example, search (say by voice) for Starbucks and everything pops up. The notion that Starbucks didn't show on the default map view at the default zoom, is pretty meaningless. Or pick a location and then press 'navigate', and relevant roads and shields pop up. The notion immediately prior to this interaction all roads and shields they weren't sprinkled all across the map in all directions, isn't really important.
But none of that functionality was examined, which is THE driving force between differences in maps for actual human beings with actual human being purposes.
Anyway I'm sure it'll get covered in the future, but I felt it to be a surprisingly weak article. Let's not forget this isn't just some random guy writing an essay, this is one of the leads of the Apple Maps cartography for almost half a decade.
I think one thing went missing too in the focus on two of the biggest anglo-saxan cities in the world and the backyard of Apple/Google, which is that the world's population doesn't live there, and that Apple sucks and Google functions in less Western areas. Just read this thread and you'll find lots of anecdotal evidence.
1. the sign it shows actually matches the sign on the roads
2 UI is clean and clutter free
3. Takes less battery life
4. uses lock screen properly unlike gmaps
5. Better voice
Google Maps on the other hand is just a buggy app and a battery hog. However there're few things Google Maps does better
1. Which lane to use
2. Suggest new route mid route for faster speed
For me (in US) routes are exactly the same all the time.