Apple is rebuilding Maps from the ground up
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
First, it's Google head on. This is exactly the stuff where Google is very hard to beat. For Apple, it's a little outside their strengths. Too fiddly. Every damned place in the world has their own little public transport issues, data sources. Apple are more of a clever solution with the right compromises bunch than a "slog our way through 10 million random issues until a pattern emerges" bunch.
I like the moxy, but there's always going to be an "are we the new Bing?" cloud hanging over projects like this, unless and until they "win." All that said, I'm glad there is something out there that isn't google.
So many folks (myself included) rely on our phones for GPS & navigation, and having the UX for that be monopolized by one player is leaving a huge use case for your phone in the hands of your biggest competitor.
I think Apple has the opportunity to make a very unique & compelling experience, with their deep integration with the OS that they don't offer to outside developers. Though we'll see if they can actually execute.
This makes me wonder: where is "Apple search"?
For example, see Safari Suggestions - https://imgur.com/a/uyd20c6
Wait, isn't Spotlight the name for Apple's local search (and maybe it's now used for whatever kind of unified search iOS likes to do?), whereas Safari's feature of treating things entered into the address bar that don't look like URLs as search queries is just a common redirection feature (analogous to the Firefox Awesomebar/Omnibar/whatever it's called now) that has nothing in particular to do with Spotlight?
But I would be very suprised, if Apple had not a team working on search algorithms, so they could start a search engine of their own, if the need is there.
Anything it can't do directly it punts to Bing.
I would argue that my pushing for more prolific relationships with developers, you sort of chip away at this competitive threat with more specific, vertical-oriented searching experiences.
Example: I'm searching for restaurants nearby, I _could_ open Google, or I could leverage the Yelp/OpenTables of the app store.
Same thing for travel - flights, hotels, etc. all have apps that could, in theory, better serve the user than the catch-all "Google Search" app.
Maps is a slightly different beast; it's almost as ubiquitous as the "Phone" app itself .
That's a level of moralizing that isn't really appropriate for analyzing decisions like this. It's equally true, and for essentially the same reasons, that Android as a whole exists because the Google leadership basically assumed Apple would screw them over sooner or later if they could.
Businesses compete, basically. It's a good thing and the efficiencies that result make us all wealthier. It's only "screwing someone over" in the myopic eyes of the internet fan boi.
That is the whole reason. Same with Chrome.
This should be the default assumption for any relationship - doubly so when corporations or big $$ is involved. That's why we have legal paperwork even for inter-family agreements - your Mom & Pop may love you now but in 20y when dementia sets it, that may be out the window (or Mom dies, Pop remarries and Step-Mom hates your guts, etc etc).
The only complaint I have about maps is that it doesn't seem to know where I'm going next. Nine times out of ten the place I'm navigating to is the same place I navigated to from the same spot yesterday.
The problem is that while Google Maps is very popular, it's not easy to find and use these features. I just came across is accidentally one day. Or it's possible Google asked me if I wanted to save if when it detected I do it often. It's been a while so my memory is a bit hazy on the original workflow I took.
While talking about hard-to-find-and-use features: sometimes, when I try to get directions, Google offers to download them for me for offline use.
This is frustrating because it only happens sometimes, but I want it almost all the time. There's a relatively easy way to download offline directions for a specific region, but I can't find a way to download offline directions for a specific route (including, presumably, a small fuzz of nearby information—I don't know what it downloads when it offers, since I find this hard to reproduce). Just downloading all the regions involved is impractical for, e.g., cross-country drives.
Do you know how to download offline directions for an arbitrary route, when Google doesn't prompt me to do so?
I had to look at the street signs and compare to the map on my phone to determine where I was and where I needed to go.
"Why do you need to see the name of the street" is a really odd question to me.
I don't get why a MAP, won't show street names. Its maddening when you have street signs and have to look around to figure out what street you're on in the application.
I'll just say Google is great at making AI and A/B testing away things that are useful and needed in a pinch.
If not, the current strategy I use is to google map search a business I see and the street name and that usually works.
And this is the heart of the Google philosophy: Second-guessing the user, rather than delivering what the user asked for. A map is a tool, not a guessing game.
You're much more likely to pull open a map to go somewhere instead of learning about street names in your own neighborhood.
If I'm in my own neighborhood, I'm probably not using a map. If I'm somewhere new, I pull out the map. Maps 101.
Well this user is happy, I don't want a digital copy of a paper map. I love the dynamic aspects of Google Maps and hope they continue to evolve new ways of showing me what I want before I do anything.
> If I'm somewhere new, I pull out the map. Maps 101.
And still I ask why would you want to know that the street is named Pike? When I'm somewhere new I don't care what any of the streets are named, I care about what is on those streets. Street names matter for turn by turn navigation, but just browsing around are useless to me. Seattle could change the name of every street tomorrow without warning and it wouldn't change where I want to go for lunch.
From your example -- If I'm in Seattle and I see "Pike Street" I might wonder if the city's #1 tourist attraction, the Pike Place Market is nearby.
Or I could just let Google decide what's best for me like a good, compliant income bag.
Obviously we use the product differently, but I'm not using Google Maps to study for The Knowledge exam. I am looking for POIs which is what Google emphasizes, streets are just part of getting there (and are then emphasized when you're in navigation mode).
Anyone who's been given a wrong location or directions by Google Maps. Repeatedly.
Like when Google Maps tells me repeatedly to drive my car through the lobby of a hotel to get from Point A to Point B.
There's plenty of examples of Google Maps screwing up royally and people needing to use Google Maps as an actual map. Just Goog... oh... right.
As for places of interest, I've seen an article that blew my mind. By analyzing business concentration, they are able to deduce the interesting parts of a city (they are shown in a different color on the map). And it works. Famous streets tend to show brightly, and even if you don't know the name, you know there is something there.
Of course it doesn't mean that street names are uninteresting, but on a map, choices have to be made. And tbh, when we have all these powerful tools, street names are, I think, secondary. It is not that I think Google choices are the absolute best, just that what works best on paper may not be the best for computers.
I like riding my motorcycle around and exploring the city. I may not have a specific destination in mind or want to take the most efficient route. being able to quickly pull up a map of my location mapped to signage in the real world is indispensable.
Naming streets is the entire point of a street map. It literally maps names to streets.
No, it's not. Showing where streets go is important independent of naming; street maps exist for places with unnamed streets (and include the unnamed streets), which would not be the case if mapping names to streets (or vice versa) were the entire point.
Your comment literally seems to say "Why would you do this thing, since I don't?". Surely that reasoning is just as specious as (say) asking why someone would want a vegetarian restaurant, since you eat meat?
From south to north the streets are:
James John Cherry Columbia Madison Marion Spring Seneca University Union Pike Pine
"You should already know all the streets" is not what I would call a scalable approach to labeling maps.
Now what if you're trying to casually browse the map to get an idea of what's around you? Have fun!
Getting a good dose of impotent rage just thinking about it.
(The most ironic part is the pop-up "You should increase browser zoom level to get a better Google Maps experience!". No, Google, not really.)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/
Popular app that uses OpenStreetMap-data: https://osmand.net/
I really don't think Apple is either capable or comfortable with dealing with the kind of messiness maps data represents vs google, who is essentially an expert on wrangling such data.
What choice do they have? Maps, location data, and the services they enable are critical to mobile devices today, and will only get more so with AR and devices without screens.
“Everybody but Google” isn’t good enough judging by the current state of affairs, and Google doesn’t play by the same privacy rules as Apple, so they seem to have few options.
Perhaps this would be too risky, but they could license it from Google?
This seems better for consumers in the long run: better to have two maps apps on the device, both attempting to be comprehensive and accurate.
When Google launched navigation on Android, it lost money in countries not covered by Ground Truth, which I think was everywhere outside the US. That's because TeleAtlas and co. charged N times as much when the same data was used for real time directions.
>But multiple sources familiar with Apple’s thinking say the company felt it had no choice but to replace Google Maps with its own, because of a disagreement over a key feature: Voice-guided turn-by-turn driving directions.
>Spoken turn-by-turn navigation has been a free service offered through Google’s Android mobile OS for a few years now. But it was never part of the deal that brought Google’s Maps to iOS. And sources say Apple very much wanted it to be. Requiring iPhone users to look directly at handsets for directions and manually move through each step — while Android users enjoyed native voice-guided instructions — put Apple at a clear disadvantage in the mobile space. And having chosen Google as its original mapping partner, the iPhone maker was now in a position where an archrival was calling the shots on functionality important to the iOS maps feature set.
>And this caused Apple — which typically enjoys very tight control over its products — no end of philosophical discomfort, sources say. Apple pushed Google hard to provide the data it needed to bring voice-guided navigation to iOS. But according to people familiar with Google’s thinking, the search giant, which had invested massive sums in creating that data and views it as a key feature of Android, wasn’t willing to simply hand it over to a competing platform.
>And if there were terms under which it might have agreed to do so, Apple wasn’t offering them. Sources tell AllThingsD that Google, for example, wanted more say in the iOS maps feature set. It wasn’t happy simply providing back-end data. It asked for in-app branding. Apple declined. It suggested adding Google Latitude. Again, Apple declined. And these became major points of contention between the two companies, whose relationship was already deteriorating for a variety of other reasons, including Apple’s concern that Google was gathering too much user data from the app.
I think it was a major strategic mistake on Google's part. But this was the heyday of Andy Rubin, and during that era Google was letting the tail wag the dog in trying to differentiate Android. They've since come to their senses and Android is back to being what it was always designed to be, a vessel for Google's services that actually make money. But that forced Apple to enter this business when they otherwise wouldn't have and now it will serve as a core technology from autonomous cars to AR. And since they're already sinking the capital and doing the grunt work to make Maps from scratch, they might as well earn some incremental revenue from it [2].
[1] http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crash...
That story is cool, but it's missing at least an additional plot twist that "people familiar with Google's thinking" cautiously chose not to mention. I doubt the Apple side would bring it up. Hopefully in ten years someone will write a memoir about those crazy days.
I disagree that this was a major strategic mistake for Google; they had no other realistic choice. A bit of that was informed by the experience with the built-in Maps AND Youtube apps written in Cupertino. The article talks about features and data, but there are other realities to contend with. Of course, Apple had its hands tied by earlier events and choices, too. Things were already on a collision course by the time the negotiations started.
This sounds definitive. Is it a conjecture, or do you know something that you're not mentioning (or possibly it is widely known and just I don't know it …)?
The All Things D article is nice when it comes to drama and gossip, but omits details behind words such as "there were a number of issues". Those twists might be mundane or boring for a good story, but made the divorce even more inevitable. The relationship was doomed to fail.
So the question for Apple is why tie themselves to a 3rd party platform? If they're going to go to this massive level of effort to generate the best data set they can achieve, they'll want to control the full stack for quality and predictability.
They could feed the OSM-relevant data they create to the platform, but that means a lot more work to create and maintain the integration tools and manage the workflow, along with potentially reduced revenues if they make OSM too good.
I doubt they'll care about any threat from OSM, but I doubt they'd see the overall effort as a good business investment. This isn't as straightforward as open sourcing some software.
It the same argument when someone talks about an issue with an open source software. The response is, “The source code is available, go fix it yourself.” It doesn’t work that way for anything but trivial issues.
No one said it has to be your job or passion. I've fixed a couple of areas in OSM, but I've probably spent no more than a few hours working on it in total.
> It the same argument when someone talks about an issue with an open source software. The response is, “The source code is available, go fix it yourself.” It doesn’t work that way for anything but trivial issues.
Fixing a map for a locale you're familiar with is orders of magnitude easier than fixing a bug in an unfamiliar codebase potentially built with unfamiliar technology. That's assuming you know how to code in the first place.
That doesn’t work unless everyone else is doing it. And for that to work, everyone should be using it in the first place. It’s a catch 22 problem. To be fair, it is possible that people do this where you live - which may be a reason why it is usable there, but I have not found that to be the case at the places I have visited.
Perhaps it is not as complicated as fixing a software bug, but the idea is same - the data is available publically, go fix it.
Create an account, figure out how to navigate the interface, figure out what rules apply to your update, apply update, get reprimanded because you followed the explicit rule for "I'm not quite sure what to do with this".
If that were actually true, Wikipedia would be no more than four stub articles written by Jimmy Wales.
The real barrier is people looking at a volunteer project and asking themselves "how can I take from this what I want?" rather than "how can I contribute to this, even in a small way?"
No one says anyone has to take on the herculean task of totally fixing all the problems they see in their area. But if you spend a little time fixing something, it will get better and perhaps even attain a high enough quality to satisfy you.
He tried to dream up some notions to gamify improving OSM's data. While their current data quality trends are remarkable, better is better, right? (I don't have the gumption to find & link their conf proceedings slidedeck right now, sorry.)
I have interest and experience with GIS, location-based stuff, games. So we tried to brain storm some game ideas.
Sadly, we got nothing.
But I'm confident someone will divine a MineCraft-esque smash hit game. Something simple, fun, engaging, cultural, that with 20/20 hindsight will leave a lot of people facepalming.
Apple could do the same thing with maps. Support a robust open mapping initiative to make sure their primary business (selling iPhones and other devices) has a solid platform for emerging technologies like AR. Making sure they have a solid maps offering supports the Apple (aka iPhone) ecosystem.
Also similarly to Google, they can still push plenty of proprietary things on top of the open parts of the initiative.
Gwern's article about it was recently discussed here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17047348
Makes perfect sense, they don't need to make money on it, just an alternative to google.
As ever, define "worse" and "my area".
OSM is consistently worse worldwide (compared to Google, TomTom and Here) for geocoding. OSM is consistently worse for lane guidance. OSM is generally worse than Google worldwide for commercial POIs (shops, restaurants etc.), but on a par with TomTom and Here, and this is very location-dependent.
OSM is better worldwide, by several orders of magnitude, for pedestrian and bicycle mapping. OSM is generally better for non-commercial POIs. OSM is very often better in all aspects (save geocoding) in rural locations, particularly in Europe.
If you're an American motorist then Google is your best map right now. If you're a European cyclist then OSM is really the only game in town. It's not a black-and-white issue.
I think a perfect example of Apple doing this is: Webkit. Webkit gets back a lot from Apple (though I'm sure there's plenty of room to be miffed at Apple for being slow sometimes, but it still doesn't disprove the point) and it's a core part of their user-facing applications.
Personally, I'd like to see them just open source what they have and let the world enjoy. Either approach would certainly remove the death grip Google has on mapping solutions right now.
Edit: update for grammar and clarity fixes.
I like to be thinking that, but being aware of me liking that thought, I'm asking myself: would I actually do so being some Apple executive? And I'm not sure I would. I do think that being community-supported is really, really great, and OSM has a pretty good community too. I'm a big opensource proponent, so it's easy for me to say, but I also think having their maps (software and data) free (as in GNU, yeah) wouldn't harm Apple, given the map is not their unique product they are selling. And being a native supporter of something that could be wikipedia for maps would be huge. So, yeah… yay OSM?
But, with all that said: IMO, OSM is a huge organizational mess. Giving them money & satellites, and then just expecting it will all "solve itself out" isn't really something I would do being responsible for Apple Maps. For starters, it's not like all OSM community members automatically become Apple employees, you're basically donating to somebody over whom you won't have any leverage. What's more important, it's not clear what it the goal of the donation, what OSM is expected to do with that? And how it will serve Apple? Their priorities seem to be quite off, OSM doesn't give a shit about any "product" whatsoever, they are just guys passionate about collecting all sorts of geo-data into databases nobody ever uses (at least, as far as OSM is concerned, they are the database: they don't make apps). And it's even questinable if such way of collecting data is the way to go in the age of imaging satellites, widely accepted spyware on every phone, ML and "big data".
And it's not like this is cheap, any way it would be done. And, no offense, but "partnering" with OSM wouldn't be exactly partnering. OSM doesn't have managers, engineers or cartographers any better than Apple can hire, all they have is community, which wouldn't even be OSM community anymore, if Apple rolls out a better (and more accessible) open geo-spatial DB than OSM has. Which, I believe, they are capable of.
also Apple need to bring alternate satellite image providers like ISRO, SpaceX
Sure if they could have a super high quality dataset they build themselves it would be stupid to share it, but they don’t have that data, and I wouldn’t bet on them to have it even putting all their weight in the effort.
There is also the issue of motivation for the user to give feedback. If I do it in Google Maps I know it will benefit most users. In OSM it’s a pure gift to the community. Apple Maps ? it’s less clearcut.
The reason to partner with OSM would be to cover the other 99% of landmass. It's very, very difficult to scale an operation like that otherwise.
Bear in mind if malicious entries got into OSM and made their way into Apple's data, guess who eats the smelly sandwitch for that?
According to the article, OpenStreetMaps was one of the data sources that Apple used and decided wasn't up to snuff.
The article doesn't specify what the problems were with OSM, or if there were any problems unique to OSM, but one of Apple's priorities is rapid map updates, which is something that can be accomplished faster if it's in-house.
In addition, Apple intends to update its new maps in real-time (new road opens and 100 iPhone users drive on it, it magically appears on the map). I don't think that's possible with OSM.
OSM comparatively was of much higher caliber, which was surprising.
The article just strikes me as plain wrong in this regard. Yes, of course Apple isn't going to use OSM in the Bay Area, but it's a big world out there.
It'd likely be necessary to make that data available under the same license OSM is under, but that'd be it.
The way people use OSM, they grab a dump of the data and then load it into a database or whatever (probably processing it into a convenient schema) and then build maps from that database. So it's pretty easy to have more than 1 source contributing to the map you are displaying.
For updates, edits to OSM are available minute by minute, so if your data ingestion is up to it you don't have to put up with the stale data:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Planet.osm/diffs#Minutel...
e.g. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-May/0...
> * I work for Apple’s Maps team. We are interested in doing some fixes and improvements to inland water features in Australia on OSM, such as adding and improving geometry of polygons for lakes and wide rivers, fixing broken relations, and correcting alignment issues for inland features when they meet the coast.*
> Atlas [1], a tool Apple created for querying, visualizing, and storing OpenStreetMap data.
> Data Improvement Projects [2] being worked on by the Apple Data Team.
> Building Footprint Data [3] that Apple is sharing.
[1]: https://github.com/osmlab/atlas
[2]: https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/issues
[3]: https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/blob/master/BUILDINGS.md
Maps, location data, and the services they enable were available on Apple devices before this project. They outsourced to Google, like everyone else. I can see how that's a strategically concerning position, especially considering that they are in a two-horse race against Google, but... you are going to have some uncomfortable dependencies in this business regardless. I mean chips are important.. nevermind.
Google was withholding the latest features from the Apple version, including vector map data and turn by turn directions. There's also indications Google wanted access to user location data in return for some of these features, something Apple was not willing to compromise on.
Sure Google could've promised that they wouldn't collect which tile a phone requested by specific user agent, but that would be silly.
It admittedly doesn't seem like a great fit for current Apple.
This is absolutely it. Maps, location data, and point clouds will power ARKit on the phone and perhaps in glasses.
Apple’s mobile UX has always relied on vertical integration, from custom-built A* chips all the way up to iCloud-powered software. Similarly, mastering underlying AR technologies will give Apple maximal control over its AR user experience.
Every time someone doesn't use Google Maps, Google loses ad revenue. If people don't use Apple's maps, Apple has lost nothing but a few bragging rights.
... because Google/Android abuses peoples privacy by following them everywhere, which gives them an advantage/much more data.
"Google admits it tracked user location data even when the setting was turned off" : https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/21/16684818/google-location...
There is nothing Apple can do to preserve their Chinese user's privacy against their own government. Either they stay in China and allow the government to access their citizen's data, or they leave China and another phone manufacturer will allow the government to access their citizen's data.
Google on the other hand is under no such pressure to violate their user's privacy. They could stop at any time, but have decided that the increased revenue and margins they can extract from the data is more valuable than their user's privacy.
This seems so obvious to me, I don't understand why this false equivalence is brought up so often.
Apple could absolutely leave China if they really cared about privacy; the backlash against the govt would be huge - your argument "but if we're not abusing your privacy, someone else might instead!" just backs the claim that Apple is doing it by choice, and their own free will. Both are doing it for money.
And do you really want a corporation to have the ability to hold a nation state hostage? What’s next? Allow us to sell our stuff without taxes, or we’ll shut shop and let you handle the outcry? Allow us to circumvent <insert a corporate unfriendly law here> or we’ll let you have it?
For better or worse, a corporation can’t be allowed to dictate the policies of a nation state. Yes, it is sad that the Chinese don’t get the same privacy rights as citizens of other countries, but that is a problem with the law of the land, not any company.
>Google on the other hand is under no such pressure to violate their user's privacy. They could stop at any time, but have decided that the increased revenue and margins they can extract from the data is more valuable than their user's privacy.
There is also no pressure on Apple to violate their users privacy. But, they do it because China represents a large percentage of their revenue growth. If it were not for their cooperation with the Chinese government their stock would tank. China is one of their largest markets, if not the largest, so of course privacy was always going to take a back seat.
>This seems so obvious to me, I don't understand why this false equivalence is brought up so often.
Probably because of Apple's hypocrisy on privacy and human rights. It's absolutely disgusting to listen Tim Cook preach about human rights and privacy, with every interview he does, considering their business practices in China.
Even better, they could only offer end-to-end encrypted services in China so that the datacenter operators can't track more than the ISPs already can.
Apple can go against prevalent business practices, other companies etc, but they can’t go against the law. And they shouldn’t even try! Do you really want a corporation having enough power to go against the law? If you live in a country where someone (including the government) can legally force you to forego your privacy, there is literally nothing you can do - except try and get the laws changed - something you may not have the power to do - even in a democracy.
The difference between Apple and Google is that Google is doing things which may not be desirable despite no law compelling them to. If the US government (or any other government) manages to pass a law which says that Apple must turn over all the user data they have - or that they must collect certain types of data, there is nothing Apple can do other than comply - or shut shop. The sole reason other Apple can resist other countries’ governments is because no one has passed laws similar to China yet. There are people who resist the passage of such laws - something that is not the case with China. Apple (or any corporation) is not going to war with a nation state over the rights of the said nation state.
>The difference between Apple and Google is that Google is doing things which may not be desirable despite no law compelling them to.
No, the difference between Apple and Google is that Google decided to leave China rather than cooperate with the government.
>If the US government (or any other government) manages to pass a law which says that Apple must turn over all the user data they have - or that they must collect certain types of data, there is nothing Apple can do other than comply - or shut shop.
Shut shop? You mean like how Google shut shop?
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/30/google-is-quietly-formulat...
There is a simple fact here you seem to be ignoring. If you want to do business in China, you follow Chinese laws.
If you have issues with China's human rights, you should encourage your local government to take up that issue. Your post reads like a bunch of raw emotion and statements like "Tim Cook doesn't believe" that which are just impossible for anyone BUT Tim Cook to know. Relying upon supposition of what you think a person thinks, and extending that to a company to arrive at a conclusion of: money > human rights is... pretty sad as arguments go.
>If you have issues with China's human rights, you should encourage your local government to take up that issue. Your post reads like a bunch of raw emotion and statements like "Tim Cook doesn't believe" that which are just impossible for anyone BUT Tim Cook to know. Relying upon supposition of what you think a person thinks, and extending that to a company to arrive at a conclusion of: money > human rights is... pretty sad as arguments go.
What's really sad is that Apple's revenue from China is far too lucrative for Tim Cook to really care about human rights and privacy. Tim Cook knows he'd probably be ousted as CEO if he ever tried to exit China.
Are you suggesting Google is being allowed to store Chinese citizens’ data on servers outside China? If the servers are within Chinese territory, it doesn’t matter who is hosting them - they are subject to the same laws.
Let’s say Apple leaves China. So what next? Do you have any contingencies outlined where the people of China get their rights?
And by the way, it’s not about Cook. Decisions like these are made by the board with shareholders’ agreement. I recommend you learn how things work before you go bashing.
Shortly after Apple Maps was introduced Google suddenly came through with these features but they lost access to peoples location and being the default app for locations on iOS.
Of those four things, which has the most potential to monetize? Maps.
People look for restaurants, for gas, for hotels, for rentals, for real estate, Etc. All of those things are being offered by a vendor who would love to know when you're looking and would love to be able to put their pitch in front of you when you are.
Maps is to phones what the browser window is to laptops.
A few years ago Apple disclosed that Apple Maps has 75% marketshare on iOS. [1] Mission accomplished.
[1] https://apnews.com/df90458e58564f19b4b7c8510f9baa67/apple-ma...
It says nothing about the users that have no use for maps and just counts them anyway
Strategically, Apple maps is in a good spot for Apple - Google's offering isn't the major choice of users for a piece of critical functionality.
Assuming that number is accurate, as Apple Maps is preinstalled on iPhones it means 25% of users went out of their way to manually remove it. Mission far from accomplished (and hence Apple's efforts in the OP to rebuild Maps' dataset entirely in-house.)
I'm also curious what the active usage numbers are versus Google Maps on iOS.
Ok, maybe slightly less than 75%, because Waze exists. But again, crushing Google Maps is not the goal. Keeping people on iOS is the goal.
I agree with your point, and think I can guess what that phrase means, but I'm not quite remembering why Bilbo Baggins would be associated with being intentionally vague about something :)
I'm not sure if it's what OP meant though.
Also, they had practical monopoly. Apple doesn't
This isn't a manufacturer problem, it's an Apple problem. Lack of choice is baked into their design, which is uncontroversial among both proponents and detractors; the former would (reasonably) say that there are tradeoffs that are the other side of the coin to constraining the user so heavily.
For majority of those people Apple maps works good enough and for other there is always Google maps. Apple does not have to beat Google maps out of existence, that is not the Apple's objective. Their objective is to make sure they are not dependant on Google for maps. It is easy to build that kind of product.
Apple wants to allow users to make map data requests anonymously using a random identifier that changes frequently.
Google wants to link the device requesting map data to a particular user account.
Google was playing hardball and refusing to provide turn by turn directions (as they did on Android) unless Apple stopped protecting their user's privacy.
Rather than give in, Apple decided to roll their own mapping service.
It's all about the difference between how the two companies make money. Google chooses to monetize their users' data. For instance, using their location data to tell it's advertising customers that a user has entered a store that sells their product. More recently, they have started buying credit card purchase data from third party data brokers so they can go farther and inform an advertiser that someone who saw their ad ended up buying the product advertised.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607938/google-now-tracks-...
Latest entry in Dec 2017: How far ahead of Apple Maps is Google Maps? https://www.justinobeirne.com/google-maps-moat
This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect securely to www.justinobeirne.com, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure. What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue. Technical Details I Understand the Risks
Maybe your DNS got hijacked? There's been some connectivity outages in the US this morning.
-Satellite imagery to generate build footprints. -Lots of human intervention -Land based car imagery
the article mentions being able to create a 3d, textured world and do some pretty interesting localisation (street signs that look like local signs, fonts that match local fonts etc) that shortens the gap between the real world and the map.
id say that from a UX perspective (even if their core data isn’t quite as good, which we really can’t comment on yet) they’re doing a lot of interesting things that google isn’t doing.
that’s not even to mention that they’re doing it all while respecting their users’ privacy... something that google will likely never do any more than obligatory hand waving toward.
it think they’re doing quite a lot better than google maps, but it’s just not data related.
A point that I often see missing is that Niantic (Ingress then Pokemon Go) historically is strongly bound to Google.
The get people’s real world movements for long periods of time, it’s even included in the game mechanics where you see path with consequent flow of people. Coupled with all the user submitted and user validated “places of interest”.
Overall it’s a tremedous amount of data of pretty decent quality.
I don't have an iOS device so I can't comment on current state, but I hope this gets first class attention.
Another problem is that it loves to move your viewport -- sometimes just a small zoom out or something, but sometimes moving you entirely, or searching around your current location instead of in the selected map area. I would prefer it if every viewport move had a prompt saying "Hey, I'm going to move your map to some other area" and give me a chance to complain, or have some sort of seamless "save this view" thing that goes into a stack in the corner so I can go back to the view that I was looking at.
This is absolutely infuriating for trip planning.
If each query was a layer, you would also have a basic GIS. You could allow the user to start asking spatial questions, such as, "Show me where all the Chinese food restaurants (layer 1) Best Buys (layer 2) are.
"Hmm. I need to go to Best Buy but I'm flexible about food. Let's tap X on the Chinese food layer and search for Poutine restaurants instead."
Suppose you want to find things that match X near some landmark Y. As far as I know, you have two options. One is to search for the string "X near Y" and hope Google parses it correctly. The other is to search for Y, memorize its location on the map, search for X (which has a good chance of moving the map view to some random location), pan and zoom back to Y from memory, and click "search this area". It's a huge pain.
I'm stil amazed how hard Maps makes it to view a street name. I can fill my screen with a street and nothing else, and I still won't see its name. I feel like they actually do it on purpose to breed dependence on Maps for navigation references.
This is one of the reasons I prefer Apple Maps to Google's -- because IMO they do a slightly better job of that. Still wish it would be better, it's a daily nuisance for me.
> I'm stil amazed how hard Maps makes it to view a street name.
If its a fairly fresh app launch, default to around me
2. The lack of consistency is especially annoying. "Italian" redirects to Italian restaurants in my area, and the same goes for "Chinese", etc.
Do you want to take a shorter route? "No | Yes (auto selects in X seconds)"
I feel this is possibly the best way you can provide the options.
I think changing from your current plan unless you panicedly (and in my jurisdiction, illegally) press a button to stay the course is just generally bad UI.
Part of this is I just don't trust Google Maps' new route to actually be faster. It seems Google Maps doesn't properly weigh the cost of these items, which leads to it's suggested route usually being slower:
* Crossing bridges during rush hour.
* Making a left turn without a light across 3 lanes of traffic.
* Going down small residential streets that are too narrow to safely drive the speed limit.
* Routes that require turning onto a busy road without a light and the corner having really poor visibility.
[tap] Oh, sushi. Not in the mood for that. [tap] Oh, that's closed. [tap] Oh, that's too close to the one I already tapped, let me zoom in... [pinch] [tap] Oh, sushi again.
I'm genuinely surprised at how many people here apparently consider that a better user experience.
Or that Google (of all companies!) hasn't rigorously tested this and found that lists work better. They convey so much more information and the whole reason you're using a map is because you don't know where stuff is, so you're going to need all that information.
If you search for something like "McDonalds", you care about which McDonalds is easiest to get to, and you don't really care about anything else.
Even if I'm looking for something more vague like "restaurants", I still usually prefer to see everything laid out on the map, but that's because I usually walk places, so location matters a lot to me.
Being able to hover your finger over certain points and quickly browse the options on a map would be great.
With a mouse, the 3 actions
- hover
- click
- double click
Ideally, the actions triggered by them are extensions of the previous one, too. With the mouse, we have that:
- hover = tell me more, but don’t really do anything
- click = tell me more and select this item
- double click = look, select, and open this item
⇒ if we can’t get a real hover, in an ideal world, a softer or shorter finger tap, not a long one would mean “tell me about this”. I doubt we can shoe-horn that into the UI this late in the game, though.
We do. Samsung used to have this on their phones (not sure if they still do):
I really liked the idea (and thought the hardware was pretty good on the Storm 2), but was too unusual on too-unpopular a phone to do much of anything.
BB never really understood how to do 'experience' - except in things at their core like battery length and keyboards. As nuanced and insightful as they were there ... it's like they considered everything else a joke, or didn't want to go deep.
The whole screen on Storm moved - neat idea - should have never made it out of the lab. Or at least, not in the manner it was. It was possibly ahead of it's time as I could feasibly see Apple doing something like this - the new MacPro trackpads are very, very nice. So subtle.
But it's all history now :)
I absolutely cannot understand why this isn't fixed. This happens so often.
Also - an option to basically always show metro/subway locations.
You jam the map full of stuff I'm not interested in - when I'm basically trying to find the subway stop.
A lot of people use the metro in cities. Almost everyone.
It's like the absence of a subway in the Silicon Valley makes you oblivious to 'master use cases'?
Also - I want to get rid of the address taking up a chunk on the screen but I want the pin to remain. Can you get that? So simple. Maybe leave the last few things pinned.
More generally the ability to have 'default' filters for the kinds of things you show and don't that are perhaps relevant to what I'm looking for.
So many nuanced rough edges, I feel you're going to have to spend some time in the field and spend time with users in a very, very detailed way to capture these little things to take it to the next level.
As you zoom out, the subway lines do disappear, but are replaced with national rail lines, and then keep zooming out and it shifts to showing major international rail terminals.
It doesn't hide all of the other stuff shown on the map, but it does effectively highlight each transit line, so it's easy to find the closest line and then scan it for nearby stations.
... but in regular map view, metro stations should all be visible on the same zoom level and beyond. Not this whack-a-mole thing of zooming in and out to find stations. No settings should be needed there.
Don't most people look for directions from a to b, by a certain mode? I've extensively used both Google and Apple maps for this and found very little difference between the two when doing this. I tend to use Google more when traveling because it supports more cities, but when I use Apple Maps in a supported city, I find it tends to give more useful information (like what line to catch, or how many stops) easier.
They are more and more moving to a map of points of interests (instead of a map of roads) and this tailors my use cases so much better.
Navigating by landmark is natural for humans, and it's cool to see Google moving to this approach.
My wife and I traveled to roughly the same area, and solely based on that one instruction we were able to go by memory, because of this new approach to nav that Google Maps is taking.
Google is well positioned to support it--between their business information + data from Android devices, detecting the closed places wouldn't be intractable.
If you really want it fixed, give some proper examples with pictures.
Now I'm scared they're gonna break it again by rebuilding it. If it ain't broke (any more), don't fix it.
EDIT: BTW, if you're on anything that might be labelled "fireroad" you don't want to be depending on a map app that needs a connection to begin with.
I think search is almost certainly better on Google Maps, but that's no surprise. I think Apple Maps is the better choice for iOS users, though, if only for the tighter integration with the OS itself and reportedly better battery life.
So, gmaps is more accurate and overall better in execution, but you recommend an inferior product because of OS integration and battery usage? Makes no sense to me. The number one priority is getting the best directions to where you want to go.
Last time I checked, one of my favorite apps for routing me on back roads, Scenic, still can't use my Watch for routing.
Maps is no bad (and clean), Gmaps is better-ish from a features POV (but noisy).
for directions and in selected cities https://citymapper.com rocks
I won’t use it now because of this.
Or you might be using the osm.org website which itself uses 3rd party search applications.
The search on the project website is designed to find data and is not designed to be a competitor for google maps.
Because in that case I have sympathy for your plight, but would still like to ask:
Are you actually trying to make that argument by pointing out how counter-intuitive a story is you just made up?
As to the actual problem: It is both well known and not as easy as some low-level interns think: Fundamentally, Maps only does this when it finds absolutely nothing relevant at the user's location–these are almost always (really bad) typos.
In that case, the only alternative is to completely ignore the far-away match, frustrating users' #1 expectation of how a search engine works. Or to present the user with some dialog "oh but that's far away!"
The latter doesn't help anybody, because the user can return with the back button, just as easily as by declining the notification. Yet the user who actually intended the search gets inconvenienced.
No, he is making what is called an "assumption" about what might have transpired.
He's not using the made up story as a chain in some larger argument.
Strangely, it's you who makes up a whole argument that the parent supposedly implied: "Are you saying that we have it all backwards, and that the wrong people get promoted, while the smart prolem-solvers get stuck in low level position and ignored?".
In fact the parent doesn't make any such argument, just asks "how this made it past QA" -- and then makes an guess/assumption about what could have transpired.
>In that case, the only alternative is to completely ignore the far-away match, frustrating users' #1 expectation of how a search engine works. Or to present the user with some dialog "oh but that's far away!"
Assuming a user wanting to find a POI thousands of miles away from where they are is rare, then the latter would be better than wasting their time, and changing their selected area on the map, with an irrelevant result.
They only care if a feature gives them a good experience, or distracts them with nonsense.
This should probably be the Number 1 rule in UX camp. No one cares if you're a wizard. No one cares if you've perfected the ultimate software moonshot, or if your architecture is a twinkling diamond of executable and perfectly maintainable perfection.
They only care that your product works and makes life easy for them.
If it doesn't, it's somewhere on a scale between irritating and crap. They either won't use it, or - if they have no choice - they'll use it and hate it.
Let's hear you explain away Apple maps' 2012 snafu where they f-ed it up so badly that they dropped the NYC subway stops. Was that "not as easy as it sounded" to keep the product features that worked fine in a previous release? Could they just "hit the back button" and use the old maps that, you know, worked ?
The problem is with arrogant product managers that don't give 2 fucks about the UX. "Oh they don't need the subway stops, I mean come on, we have a release schedule to make or I won't get my bonus!" "Their time is ok to waste, they can just hit the back button!"
IMO The UX of apple maps is better than google maps (exempting biking directions)
Apple Maps doesn't always find the fastest route, but at least I can understand what it's saying.
Personally I won't use Apple Maps while driving, for example, because Google Maps lane hints provide a much better experience - although when I was out of the UK recently, I wad disappointed by how poor Google's routing was on some journeys.
But even if it were true - what's the point of a good UI if it displays bad data?
I suspect "bad data" is both a little subjective and, as I mentioned in another comment, very location dependent. It's quite possible that one of the reasons Apple is starting to build their own location data set is because relying on other providers leads hasn't worked out so well for them outside the US. (Although I suspect they're going to still be dependent on those providers for years to come.)
My personal feeling is the extents of the map window should be immutable and sacrosanct.
Google Maps to the rescue; it gave me 100% accurate directions 100% of the time.
Off topic, but this sounds exactly like the scene from The Office.
Their data still isn't as good though. For the most part, as long as you're in/near a population center or sticking to major highways it's fine. But it still makes a lot of minor errors when you're out in the hinterland. When I'm going places I'm not familiar with I still default to Google Maps since it's more reliable. This is especially true in countries outside the US.
Google also does a way better job at address verification. Apple Maps tends to take the names I type very literally while Google is pretty uncanny at being able to infer where I'm actually trying to go. For example, if I type the name of a local French restaurant, I can't count the number of times Apple Maps defaulted to showing me a restaurant by that name in Senegal or France or something.
This is especially weird in light of the fact that it's Apple, not Google, who has access to my chat logs and calendar appointment data and I have location services on by default for Apple Maps.
If you're looking for walking/hiking trails, Apple Maps has pretty much nothing. Google certainly isn't as good as a dedicated trail map app, but at least they try sometimes.
I think on the whole it's good for Apple to be taking control of their mapping back end, although I suspect it would have been better for them if they'd started by, say, buying Here (the former Nokia mapping unit).
Something is showing Apple that it is broken. I am betting it is user rates. Google has taken over iPhones for so much of it and I am sure they don't like the fact that Google Maps are used more then Apple Maps.
On my imperical evidence side, my daughter uses Apple Maps and I can tell you it gives back mapping when we are less then an hour away but more then 20 minutes. For example the way i drive isn't on Apple Maps and it adds 5 minutes to the trip and Google Maps has the trip 5 minutes faster. I don't know if Google is getting that data from my driving or from better algorithms but it has happened for then a few times.
The problem is that Waze and Google Maps are definitely better. Being the 3rd best solution means it’s not my go to option.
Siri has the same problem.
Apple Maps has improved since it launched but its far less accurate for me than Google has been despite that its integration is far tighter including CarPlay.
Your results may vary but I am very happy to hear they are doing a ground up rebuild. I won’t miss what they have today at all.
However Google Maps has an incredibly obnoxious UI pushing me to enable more data collection. The largest text on the search surface is "You're missing out" (by not signing in). If I do sign in, a search for "Home" pops up a modal dialog "Turn on Web and App Activity to search for home and your other personal places". This occurs despite setting an on-device Home location, which GMaps supports.
Apple Maps doesn't ask for sign-in, and a search for "home" uses the location stored on-device. Privacy is why I prefer Apple Maps.
Not for me. It's always eerily accurate. Maybe you're a really slow driver.
Do you live in a low-traffic area? IME GMaps is least accurate when there's heavy traffic.
I think whoever cracks lane-aware positioning, mapping, and routing could make some big improvements.
But mainly I just want a big button that says "don't make me make unprotected turns across multiple lanes of traffic" - Apple Maps seems less aggressive in that regard than Google Maps, which is why I prefer it.
Exactly, that's the one case where Gmaps gives me bad estimates, as there's something like that for me on my drive to work. The rest of the time, its estimates are very good.
I guess it'd be nice if Google over time determined if you're a faster or slower driver than average and adjusted accordingly.
As of a year or two ago, Apple Maps now consistently performs as well as Google Maps (as measured by its ability to route around bad traffic). At least in my area. So given their equivalence I always opt for Apple Maps these days to help preserve my privacy.
Of course, as other have already said, Google Maps has had a number of UX failings over the years (doesn't Google always?). But what really frustrated me was their handling of toll roads, at least a few years ago. They updated the app and then suddenly the Avoid Toll Roads setting was tucked away, hidden behind layers of obscure and opaque minimalist UI nonsense that Google so loves. As if that wasn't enough the setting would constantly revert.
So there you are scrambling to bring up directions in the car while running late. If you're lucky you recognize that Google is routing you through the toll roads. So you burn precious time trying to remember the arcane recipe of nameless shapes that you have to press to find the setting. And then re-find directions.
If you're not lucky, you forget to check the directions for toll roads, and now you're barreling down the highway, surprised to suddenly see the traffic cleared, only for horror to dawn on you shortly thereafter as you realize you're about to enter the toll road and there's no escape.
Over the years Google has screwed with their handling of toll roads a number of times. Why they have such a penchant for dark patterns surrounding toll roads is beyond me. Maybe some Google employee is on the take with the toll road companies? (mild sarcasm)
I have not experienced these issues with Apple Maps. Another point in its favor.
P.S. It's interesting to have watched this evolution. Apple Maps came out it seems like forever ago. Wikipedia says ~6 years. The growth since then has been incredible, but I don't think any of us have forgotten that Apple Maps was, frankly, a laughing stock. The village idiot of mapping. I'm glad they stuck with it though. It's nice to have alternatives. Whether you're a fan of Google or Apple, I hope it's appreciated that options exist. Because let's be honest, before Apple Maps, was there a real competitor to Google Maps? (Though I'm always silently rooting for OpenStreetMaps.)
Until Apple fixes all their issues, they need to allow other map providers for Carplay.
Google Maps are slightly more detailed, probably since Google is generating the maps automatically from satellite imagery, but for going to one point of the city to another I feel that the two apps are essentially equivalent!
Edit: Yep, announced at WWDC. https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-carplay-ios-12-will-fina...
Apple Maps guided me to <so and so restaurant> somewhere in the North Bay...
I even walked into an Apple Store, found an iPad, and submitted a correction request once. That was almost two years ago. For a long time, every time I'd pass that Apple Store, I'd walk in, go to an iPad, and search my house on Apple Maps to see if they accepted my request. They never ever fixed it. I don't think they ever did, though it's been a few months since I gave up checking so who knows.
Until Lyft banned Apple Maps, I'd have to call drivers in advance to make sure they weren't using Apple, and if they said they were, I'd cancel on them (I still do this for Waze users, because Waze can't path to my house).
I hope their renewed effort to improve Apple Maps pays off mainly because of their privacy-first mentality.
Also, I've noticed that whenever I submit a request for them to fix something, say, a business that's not listed I get a response and the item fixed within a day or two.
We really took a big step backwards with Google Maps and the maps that are trying to be Google Maps. The maps are garish and have no useful details. I have to scroll and zoom around until the name of the street I'm currently in decides to appear.
And then those huge swathes of nothing. Random stores being indicated. But you always get an incomplete set of data. Not every store on the block or nothing.
This is especially bad if you're on a bus and want to see where the stops are, so you know when to ring the bell. GMaps makes you zoom so far in that you're constantly scrolling the map to keep up with the bus.
This is totally off topic... Michelin have the same old school European thing for travellers that Guinness have for drinkers, a cause for those with a cause. I like the idea they pulled off an app that's good. I bet the Guinness app is shite.
I honestly think this is a hidden gem that more people should know about.
Apple
250K map views / *day*
Mapbox
50K map views / month
Google ($200 credit buys you)
28k map views dynamic on web / month
Can't find pricing after the free tier, maybe they'll announce it after the beta is over.
Once out of beta this would be a good choice if you have a lot of map views.
Bing still has this feature, though they've updated it (made it less discoverable, I feel) and removed older photos. If you go to https://www.bing.com/maps and point at the "Road" menu on the upper right, you will see "We have updated Bird's Eye. Learn more", which gives you the following information:
>Bird's Eye has changed
> New and crisp Bird's Eye imagery is available in many metropolitan areas. There are two ways of viewing the new Bird's Eye.
>1. In cards
>2. Right-click on the map
>Note: Bird's Eye may not be available in your area as outdated imagery is no longer available.
If I go to central San Francisco or Seattle, I can right-click the map as indicated and select "View bird's eye", and the picture will show up.
As, relevant to this story is the announcement today that Microsoft / Bing has just released 125,000,000 building footprints as open data (i.e. suitable for OpenStreetMap)
https://blogs.bing.com/maps/2018-06/microsoft-releases-125-m...
If Apple Maps gives me that, especially if it syncs from a webapp to my phone, I'm in.
The interface is not the most intuitive but it’s there.
there isnt any web version of osmAnd though but you can sync the osmAnd folder to a pc and open the bookmarks in any gps app. ive never tried editing them there and syncing back to the phone so youll have to experiment yourself on that one
In my urban driving experience I rarely consider distance over other factors, such as time and/or comfort of the drive.
In my city I will often make alternative choices not based on distance, but on the amount of effort I need to put into the ride itself. Right now I'm just waiting for my lady and when she gets in the car I'm not taking the fastest route at all, but the most leisurely route to our brunch.
Am I alone in feeling these are two different yet valid (more than just me) forms of user experience?
These apps are really more for navigation than maps in my experience.
could anyone with map/traffic experience please comment on when data scale overshoots functional requirements? that is, what is the user threshold (e.g., 1,000 users in the same 5 mile radius) above which traffic accuracy stops improving?
But for me, that is not all there is. I want an app that feels light and responsive, when I'm on say a bike, or in traffic. It needs to be reliable and not get forced to shutdown due to memory constraints. It also should not sell my data to the devil. All of these are ways in which Apple Maps is better.
It has been going for long time. For example in Japan, where Apple has 50+% market share, has a Mapping services that is utter crap. Ata Distance [1] has been covering everything Apple in Japan, and I think they are doing fine there because everyone uses Yahoo Map.
My problem is these sort of rebuilding from ground up ( Which they state started 4 years ago ), is going to take years before it is any good. I doubt they could get it near to their current 3rd party Data sources within 3 years. And possibly another 3 years before it reach better than current solution.
Given the locked-in nature of iOS and proprietary integrations, Apple Maps doesn't have to be better than Google, it doesn't even have to be as good as Google. It just has to be okay.
Anyway, it's possible that Apple sees it as just beyond their capabilities at this time.
1: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37.8505318,-122.2224643/37.8...
2: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Canyon,+CA/Oakland,+Californ...
3: https://www.strava.com/heatmap#14.73/-122.22836/37.85920/hot...
I do bike directions based on OSM data: https://cycle.travel/map
I hope it will be customisable. I'm in Europe and basically every map app has this bug that at a certain zoom level useful data isn't visible (even though it could easily fit on the screen) while a closer zoom requires a lot of annoying scrolling.
Here Maps still exist... you might not have the app installed on your phone, but they provide map-related data, software and services to car manufacturers.
Because I usually operate my phone with one hand only the "pinch-to-zoom" guesture is just a pain (especially when you're carrying something in the other hand) and zoom buttons are easy to miss (e.g. while walking). This guesture also works to zoom in and out in Google Chrome, yet I don't think I've seen it in the Apple world yet (except of course in products made by Google for Apple devices).
If someone can pony up 100K (what it costs to retrofit a car like the one pictured in the article) I could fund someone to drive it for 6 months around Barranquilla, Santa Marta and Cartagena in Colombia and put out an open dataset. I promise return the heavily used hardware after the 6 months and work with archive.org to publish it for posterity, then someone else can do the same in another country. Even if it takes us 30 years, it's worth doing.
its sort of like quantity over quality. google/apple map cars record great quality but there is too much area to cover so they can only update maybe every few years. (some places still arent on google street view yet). whereas most people have decent cameras on their phones these days so the area they travel around could potentially be updated more often, just with lower quality
the photos are analysed in much the same way as described in the article... faces and licence plates are blurred, a (rough) 3d point cloud is made, street signs are analysed and objects are segmented (which they will be using for.
unfortunately mapillary is not public domain but its still a better system than each company recording their own streetview data and keeping it to themselves. it just seems ridiculous for each company to put so much effort into creating a full detailed map of the world when they could all just be contributing to one map (like openstreetmap)
Just a personal opinion, though, I expect things to be different in other areas.
I still often have to use Google Maps (or Waze) to find directions to a location in the form of "Albertson's on Tropicana." Google always gets this right, but Apple Maps only gets this only if you're close to the location. Same thing with intersections. Google Maps is always right, but Apple Maps requires you know and provide the full street name, including Blvd, Pkwy, Avenue, etc, which is infuriating.
Lastly, Siri's speech recognition often gets place names badly wrong, recognizing them as generic sound-alike nonsensical phrases, ignoring travel context, where as Google tends to get them right as local location names, somehow factoring travel context into the recognition.
If I can get the destination into Apple Maps easily, I prefer Apple Maps, if not, I go with Waze/Google Maps.
Our car has Car Play so I've been using Maps exclusively up to now and whilst I think I still prefer Waze overall, Maps is perfectly fine and I've gotten used to its rough edges.
(I'll admit that it's sometimes hard to square this viewpoint with the level of brokenness they ship)
Am I the only one with this problem?
Google maps is dense. Sometimes that's necessary. But it's too dense. Especially for a navigator.
Something between Waze and Maps would be a sweet spot for me.
I know a few of their data scientists--they have a good and talented crew working at it. I look forward to seeing what they accomplish.
I'm not 100% sure how much Google Maps Cycling directions try to avoid hills, but they DO list the elevation change in the sidebar, at least on a web browser, so they're aware of the concern over elevation change.
EDIT: I also wish Google Maps would take into account that your average person will walk slower up tall hills. In my experience, it doesn't seem to do that.
what ? Do they ask user to opt-in into this ? Because otherwise that sounds impossible to achieve (I am not against anonymous data collection but most people coalesce this with losing privacy)
First, electric cars
second, AI and self-driving cars
third, high speed internet in your vehicle where you can surf the Web. Location will be a huge deal.
Apple needs to master this space, Maps is just a client consuming data and displaying it in a form of a map. Geolocated data is where the money will be.
I hope Apple will put a bit more love into maps going forward
For emails, iCloud is already there, no GMail needed.
Now, dear Apple, make an Apple search engine and all my data will be in hands of privacy conscious company, not interested in selling it for Ads.
Although, if you are willing to check out android and a Google service fan, I highly recommend the pixel 2 or upcoming pixel 3. I tried the HTC one and a Samsung galxy s4 and switched back to Iphone due to shovelware/inevitable slowness in the past. The pixel 2 though is just as fluid though as my iphone 6s and every Google service works better since it is designed by Google through and through. I cannot confirm it won't slow down like my past phones in a few years so take my opinion with a grain of salt but I am super happy with my decision so far.
Also, considering that android is much more open to choosing app options, Apple definitely seems like the predominate shovelwarer company if you prefer Google services since Apple tends to force their own apps onto you in their ecosystem.
Little did we know
I’m tired of having to accept Google’s clunky apps and stupid UI changes just because their data is better. I want somebody to be able to buy Google’s data (say) and decouple it. And that’s not a new problem (I don’t want to have to use Microsoft Word either).
https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/29/questions-about-apples-new...
Baring some massive leap in AI I don't see anyone gaining market share against a well known perfectly good solution.
So when will we get this improved Maps, in 5+ years just like Apple Pay?
I think you posted in the wrong thread. This one is about Apple Maps.
Please consider the quality of your comment before you post it, plus its relevance to the topic.
I, like many, rely on HN for high-quality news and high-quality perspectives on those topics. I'm frankly more and more dissuaded by low-quality, hardly-on-topic comments like yours. You appear to enjoy co-opting the topic to gripe about the MacBook Pro. Please do that somewhere else.
If Apple released a mobile workstation with the same (or similar) form factor as the 2015 15" rMBP with the same keyboard (and obviously get rid of the touch bar), same 99.5 Wh battery, same port selection (except replace TB2 ports with TB3), same Magsafe charging port, updated internals with non-proprietary, non-soldered RAM, SSD, and wireless card, I would pay whatever the hell they would want. It won't happen, but a man can dream.
Sorry for ranting so much about iTunes in this thread, and from some other comments maybe I don't need to use it as much as I thought I'd have to. But then again, why do I have to use third-party apps for e.g. podcast client and music player. Those are such a central appliances that they should really be served well by Apple, who even include things like iMovie and Garage Band with their OS.
You can even do that without iTunes if you pay $25 a year for iTunes Match.
My original comment was about iTunes on desktop, although the mobile version is also confusing and counter-intuitive, but much less buggy.
I never knew exactly what type of catastrophe would happen to my iPhone when it "synced" with iTunes.
I was responding to this.
Movies was not a good idea. Apps was too far. Music (the subscription service) was stupid. Then they forced UI changes on the old/working stuff because of the new garbage.
I really hope the low level rumors that a rewrite/breakup is happening are true.
iTunes WAS great.
In addition, it's terribly buggy. Some things just go wrong from time to time with no apparent reason, and without non-cumbersome ways to recover from. There's lots of issues in the Apple support forums where the answer is just 'yeah, this sometimes happens, you'll have to delete this or that and re-add it'.
I used to use iTunes extensively, but have since switched to Vudu (Walmart), Amazon Digital, and Play/YT for my digital rentals because I'd prefer to watch them in a browser or on a Roku, neither of which are possible in the iTunes/Apple ecosystem.
One big reason why is that browser video streaming is extremely reliable on a reasonable connection, but iTunes' rental buffering was a huge headache last I tried to use it (and the data usage significantly higher than browser video for some reason, even at the same resolution).
Making good a new globe covering map data layer is not exactly a 9mo project.
It sounded like many inside knew it wasn’t ready.
Forstall lost his job over it, didn’t he?
[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...
I'm not sure if Apple Maps rewrites "code from the scratch". From the article, it seems they are building "Maps from the scratch" with some code reuse.
I'm glad they're wasting the money, though. I like options. And they have the money...
Does this seem contradictory to anybody else? Kind of like "anonymized data collection" that turns out to be not-so-anobymous when it invariably leaks?
So even if they could find all the segments from YOUR trip (which they can’t, according to what they’ve said) they couldn’t even reconstruct what you were doing, only a few small stretches of road you were on.
That's why you need to do more work, as in two of Google's patents:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8972187B1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US9794373B1
For example competing with Google at big data and AI with Maps and Siri, or competing with Microsoft with iWorks. Keynote is great, but I'd rather use Google Docs or Open Office than Pages and Numbers.
In contrast, today Logic and FCPX are very competitive in their market.
The fact that Apple Maps exists forces Google to dedicate resources towards keeping Google Maps decent on Apple's platform. Competition is good, even if you don't use the competing product.
But is it good for Apple to keep investing resources in something that will most likely never be as good as the competition?
“Everybody but Google” isn’t good enough judging by the current state of affairs, and Google doesn’t play by the same privacy rules as Apple, so they seem to have few options.
My point is about investing to produce mediocre results.