Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrymyers | Hacker News Reader

I really want to use Apple Maps full time on my iPhone, just because of how much clutter Google Maps has accumulated on the screen.

If anything tells me Google is losing the ability to innovate it's the newly added pill buttons for pre-set searches and branded POIs on the map. I remember when this was added to MapQuest circa 2010, and was the transition from trying to have an excellent mapping experience to just adding revenue focused features.

Google is still operating from an extremely strong position, by nature of having nearly infinite budget and owning their mapping and search dataset. It's concerning that the iOS app seems to be suffering from the same issues that preceded the gradual downfall of MapQuest from a product perspective.

View on HN

It’s incredibly clear from the outside that Google is an organizational mess that struggles to make product decisions and keep them. From the surprisingly bad UX of a lot of their services, to the random creation and destruction of services and apps. It all reeks of bad political infighting.

A few weeks ago someone here (or was it on Reddit?) explained this: Since Google found advertising to be a huge hose where money pours out like crazy, they're trying to find another such hose.

I think that explains a lot of their behaviour and why they're even shutting down seemingly successful (from a user's view) services - because they don't earn enough money.

Another big point is that to be successful at Google, you have to create new projects. Nobody gets promoted by maintaining existing projects. Also, it seems as if there's no communication between groups. So if a group gets reassigned or key people leave, their project (e.g. the umpteenth messenger app) gets sunset, too.

I don't think this is all political, but rather they're aimlessly throwing projects at the wall to see which stick.

> Since Google found advertising to be a huge hose where money pours out like crazy, they're trying to find another such hose.

Other than advertising, which scales like crazy and has negligible unit costs, there isn't much that would meaningfully move the needle at Google scale. Cloud computing would work there, but it's definitely a lower margin business than selling ads online, since there are actual costs for hardware and ongoing software maintenance.

> I don't think this is all political, but rather they're aimlessly throwing projects at the wall to see which stick.

Which is kind of funny, because a decade or so ago, Larry Page said that they'd put "more wood behind fewer arrows." [0] That article even mentions Google+:

> Can Google still push the creative envelope without a testing facility? That’s yet to be proven. Although last month’s successful launch of Google+ could be taken as an early indication that Google’s knack for inventiveness will live on outside of the lab.

In retrospect, that didn't age too well.

[0] https://news.yahoo.com/more-wood-behind-fewer-arrows-google-...

I guess that's move fast and fail fast for you. It's like a weed generating lots of tiny seeds to make sure as many potentially fertile spots as possible get explored.

Speaking of organizational mess and product decisions...

I find it shocking how bad Hangouts is.

It's so convenient. Chat, built right into Gmail. It works. But. BUT.

- It does not support video. Drop in a video, and you get a bizarre error message telling you to try "JPG, PNG, GIF, BMP, TIFF, and HEIFimage files" (sic) instead. https://twitter.com/dcposch/status/1303193761313206272

- Tiny little chat windows. No replies, no reactions. Basic UX that feels like abandonware from 2010.

- If you have Google Fi, you can take phone calls thru Hangouts, but you cannot send or receive text messages (??)

I just feel bad for whatever rump team of a few engineers has to maintain that product. They are plainly caught on the wrong end of some strange and gross internal politics.

Google has a self-defeating practice of emphasizing "new products shipped" in their promotion packets. That probably explains why their army of PMs has, instead of improving Hangouts for a billion Gmail users, chosen to create the following instead: Google Meet, Duo, "Google Chat", and an endless parade of now-cancelled apps like Allo.

Is Google Maps an example of this? I think it's very clearly an app which dominated the market by offering best-in-class service for untenable prices (Maps API used to be free for developers up to an absurd amount) and is adding monetization elements now that it dominates the market.

That's every VC's dream isn't it?

Yes, of course, except that the decision-making has shifted towards priorities that do not benefit the customer, though they used to.

I have no interest in seeing where the nearest McDonalds is, unless I search for it. POI markers for places I need to go (via bookings/appointments) are good, but POIs for places I have never been are bad.

For whatever reason I can never see the street name I want to see anymore. Between the excessive labelling, there is simply no space, and Maps decides to prioritise other labels instead of the STREET NAME.

When I am navigating, I really _really_ need to know the street name.

> For whatever reason I can never see the street name I want to see anymore.

It's been this way for years, and it's my #1 gripe with Maps. It's particularly bad in a dense grid like NYC, where some streets only appear for a block or two. If Maps doesn't decide to print the name on that block...I guess I'm not allowed to know what street that is?

Yes, you're right, it's been aggravating me for years.

I vaguely recall reading about this on HN when it happened, and the consensus was that the logic for determining whether to print the street label had been changed for aesthetic reasons.

Peak form over function.

Anecdotally, I don't see any rhyme nor reason for whether it decides to show the street name or not. Oftentimes, it will value a side-street over the main street, and in _some_ cases this makes sense (e.g. you are on the larger street, and want to see intersecting streets), but Maps doesn't seem to read contextual clues... if I am not navigating, or zooming in from further away, showing larger streets first would be better.

I don’t think I’ve seen any mapping program show dense streets that well, from MapQuest to Microsoft Streets to maps.me to Google Maps.

I’ve worked on similar problems and it’s not the easiest to solve. And I’ve never solved it because it was never that important of problem to solve and we just moved on to the next issue.

I would say the other POI markers do serve one value, and that is with regards to finding a place... if you notice it's right behind the McDonalds, then you know you are close when you see the big M from the street. Similar for strip malls.

That's true, but it's not Google's intent. It's just another source of ad/promotional revenue. The POIs show up before I search anything. A more user focused solution would wait until I selected a destination, detect that where I'm going is a less frequented, and then display something along the lines of "Hey it looks like this location can be difficult to find, here's some near by stores to look for <insert recognizable brands>."

To be fair it doesn't matter what Google's intent is, I use this feature for that purpose all the time.

Until you come to Japan and realize that most of the streets don't have a name, and the addresses look more like random numbers than coordinates :)

>I really want to use Apple Maps full time on my iPhone, just because of how much clutter Google Maps has accumulated on the screen.

Apple Maps UI: A big map, with a search bar at the bottom. Simple and nothing but the essentials.

Google Maps UI: A page full of ads, a map full of ads and ads masquerading as recommendations. Plus five tab bar buttons at the bottom to not accomplish very much.

I've switched to Apple Maps simply because of its better UX and how much easier the app is to use. As far as I can tell, their mapping and navigational data in Canada is every bit as good as Google's. The only thing keeping Google Maps on my phone is their superior reviews. Once Apple replaces Yelp reviews, I'll jettison the Google Maps app into the sun.

Problem with Apple Maps is that it doesn’t allow multi stop trips and that the search function is way worse than Google maps. I also have had situations where the directions from Apple Maps were just plain wrong. Apple likes to keep things simple but I think they are going too far. Things like offline maps and search, multi stop trips and others are just way too useful to be left out.

It also has a serious lack of data despite all the work in the original link - a lot of the places I frequent just don't show up in Apple Maps at all.

Another problem with apple maps: it has businesses at the wrong geographical location.

I was sent off 1.5 miles away on the same road, to a wallgreens, when my destination was a restaurant with friends. I came late. It was humiliating.

You must be using another Google Maps than me. I'm looking at it right now and I have exactly zero ads: A search bar, buttons to show gas stations etc. the map itself and then Explore, Go, Saved, Contribute and Updates buttons. This reeks of Apple FUD.

Apple Maps navigation used to do things like take me to vacant lots in major midwestern cities instead of the correct property which was several blocks away. Sounds like it works reliably well outside of California now?

I'd say it's very reliable. I'll still cross reference Waze and Google Maps, if I absolutely need to arrive at somewhere on time, but over the past year or so there's only been a very small number of instances where I thought that Apple's navigation directions were inferior to the competition (and even then, we're talking a few minutes)

It's not reliable if you're cross referencing constantly.

I live outside of the USA, and Apple maps consistently screwed up to the point that I've deleted it.

Also living outside the USA, and Apple maps is more accurate in some places than Google maps (the Netherlands). For instance a very big business lot was completely grey on Google maps, but completely mapped out on Apple maps. I don't even have Google maps downloaded on my new iPhone.

So, one anecdote for, one against, it evens out for now.

Last straw for me was when it led me down a very bizarre route through parts of a city that were extremely busy and then over a toll bridge when I could have taken a much shorter, more direct route, and avoided the toll all together. I wouldn't delete an app over business info, I would when it does that.

>It's not reliable if you're cross referencing constantly.

Eh, I cross reference Google Maps with Waze all the time back when I used it, but I wouldn't dare call Google Maps unreliable. It costs nothing to do, so why wouldn't it?

> I cross reference Google Maps with Waze all the time back when I used it, but I wouldn't dare call Google Maps unreliable

Unless "back when I used it" refers to pre-2013, I'm not sure I'd describe that as cross-referencing.

It costs time?

Not the person to whom you were responding, but does it really cost that much time? If I need to be sure of where something is, like for a job interview or a time-critical meeting, I'll check as many sources as I can.

Disclaimer: I'm from New Zealand. Map data is constantly out of date here, no matter which vendor you deal with. Google, Apple, Bing, OSM, whatever. For me, double checking is no problem.

I've been to NZ in the last 10 years(2015), and used Here maps (because I was able to download the entire country map and use them all offline) and had no problem there. I was in the south part of the South Island, from Dunedin in through Roxborough and Alexandra, so not the case of just sticking to Auckland or anything.

Didn't Waze get bought out by Google years ago?

To me, Apple Maps still doesn't feel as good for searching obscure things as Google Maps did 5 years ago, but neither does Google Maps.

An example: I recently searched for "photography repair" in my area and Apple gave me film developing places and local event photographers, Google gave me (I kid you not, first result) McDonalds and Best Buy. The latter I can understand, they sell photography equipment and they do repair things (I don't think photo gear?..) but McD? McD pin is also always visible in Google Maps for me now.

Neither result set was helpful, though I guess that's because what I was looking for probably doesn't even exist in the area. Apples results were more useful, I could at least call those places and ask for advice and they're local businesses. Google on the other hand was just irrelevant paid advertising basically. They are regressing.

I should say too I've been trying to main Apple Maps for 5 years and it has gotten a lot better as a mapping/navigation tool, it has been my main navigator for 3 years but I still bounce to Google for search variety.

With Google Maps I will know about a Maverik gas station that is on my route that I know I want to stop at. I'll search for it "along my route" and I get a bunch of other gas stations that I don't want.

I suspect they are prioritizing the other gas station brands because they paid for preference, and selected "Maverik" as one of their keywords, but the impact to me is that the exact thing I searched for doesn't come up even though I know it's there because I've stopped there before.

If somebody gives me a simple maps product algorithm that just shows me what I'm asking for without preferencing paid people using key words and I'll likely switch. I've loved Google for many years but they are getting much worse.

I wish there was a premium product that I could pay for. I’d pay an annual fee if the search is accurate, supports offline, has good navigation and supports CarPlay. Right now I use Apple Maps for online navigation and Here maps for offline. Neither does a good job of search. And both suck to different extent with navigation. Navigation is so crucial to us these days it’s totally worth paying for. I have been using Apple Maps for a few years now and it has gotten a ton better than it used to be. If that continues it’ll be part of the Apple tax and I’d be glad to continue as an Apple customer.

Adding to the anecdata, this was actually infuriating recently while I was on a road trip. I was searching along my route for gas stations and it seemed to be prioritizing Chevron stations. I ended up at a sketchy gas station in the middle of nowhere where half the pumps didn't work and the other half had broken card readers. Come to find out there was a Love's less than 5 miles up the road, right off the highway, with clean restrooms and working amenities.

Was also having this recently. Apple for some reason was failing at finding anything along the main stretches of highway I was on (with pit stop style gas/convenience combos) whereas Google was recommending gas 5 minutes off the highway but also recommending Subway which was located in the pitstops with the lesser known gas so then I'm just searching for Subway to find the rest stations instead of gas...

Perhaps one day they, or a competitor, will do a ‘Maps Premium’ that simply charges the user inserted of all the ads, targeting, etc. And maybe a ‘Maps Premium+’ that allows for customization and going back to the peak usability design of Maps.

The problem is the higher-level decision makers having fully internalized "never leave money on the table". If there is a premium paid product, it will later have advertising added to it, and results prioritized, because that is an additional source of revenue. Never mind that it defeats the entire purpose of using the premium in the first place.

The second level is that customers know that this will happen, and don't bother looking into the more expensive options. Why bother paying a premium when you get the same poor experience out of it?

The third level happens when market research shows that people are not willing to pay for a premium product. This gets erroneously attributed to people preferring cheap ad-ridden junk, rather than being a response to markets producing expensive ad-ridden junk. (Side note, I despise the concept of "revealed preferences" for this reason.)

Your right in that there are people who have near sighted foolish thoughts like that. The truly impressive folks, if they’re around, will see past that kind of nonsense. Someone who doesn’t subscribe to another’s dogma in Steve Job’s words.

> An example: I recently searched for "photography repair" in my area and Apple gave me film developing places and local event photographers, Google gave me (I kid you not, first result) McDonalds and Best Buy.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your results might have been more satisfying if you had searched using the term “camera repair”.

Yeah bit of a brain fart when I wrote this, I probably searched for that but I tried a couple of terms in each.

Actually I probably was searching "photography" at some point because "camera" was bringing up general retail more and I was hoping an actual repair business would hav photography as a keyword more than a retail business would. Just further illustrates how frustrating this is.

I wouldn't even expect a camera repair business to exist, much less be able to find it on a search in a map app.

I agree, I’ve often found smaller or less “online” businesses (e.g. a local car stereo shop) on Google that Maps doesn’t surface. But I usually just search for these in a browser anyway, and open Maps when I actually want to navigate there.

I made it a habit to report all missing businesses/locations on Apple Maps I find via other means. Mostly for my own convenience but also to help others/those businesses.

Since they added biking directions in the city I live, I've managed to switch to Apple Maps full-time! Just recently completed a cross country drive with only Apple maps - works really well. Of course now I've locked myself even further into the Apple's ecosystem, but at least my maps are smooth and minimal for now...

Apple’s approach to cycling directions is second rate IMHO.

It’s only available in certain media city locations. If you stray out of those areas you’re out of luck.

Basically Apple seem more interested in rolling this out as a tick box item for journalists than helping me get to work.

This tells me that Apple is not serious about its Maps app.

So, say they wanted to support this for most of the world, what would look different to outsiders?

Waiting to support part of the world until they can support all of the targeted regions would deprive users of data they have for, I guess, years.

So, it should be a gradual rollout. Where should they start? I would think it’s easiest in richer countries, where it’s easier to obtain reliable data, and updates thereof.

Also, denser population areas likely give them most bang for the buck (getting many happy users as fast as possible seems necessary to me when discussing the success of the Maps app with senior management)

Because of those arguments, I don’t see whether that would look much different from what’s happening now.

So, I don’t see how one can conclude they aren’t serious about the Maps app or cycle paths.

Of course, things would be different if we had data telling us they don’t plan to get large coverage, slowed down or even stopped data gathering. I am not aware of either, though. It would be nice to have a history of the info on https://www.apple.com/ios/feature-availability, to see what, if any, progress they make.

By your logic, Denmark or The Netherlands would have been the prime location for bicycle routing to be introduced. Not only are the governmental infrastructure data sources of pristine quality, those places also see the most amount of cycling hours in the world. So they would rapidly get more data that they could fine-tune their algorithms with.

That surprised me, too. All the data probably already is in https://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=7&lat=52.65153&lon=8.9347... (aside: look how limited Danish cycling infra is compared to the Netherlands and Belgium)

Maybe routing is too hard on such a dense network, or it’s just that they’re an American company.

Only time will tell and we can be hopeful but a map that only covers part of any particular country is not very useful for navigation except as a proof of concept.

As it is it’s more like the 3D Tour feature of Maps. A great novelty but not useful outside of a very narrow usecase. That’s been around for a few years now but is still only available in a handful of locations.

> been around for a few years now but still only available in a handful of locations.

seems like a fairly long list though I havent monitored how often they add locations so maybe it launched with 100+ international locations.

https://www.apple.com/ios/feature-availability/#maps-flyover

Google still doesn't have Street View for my house. This tells me Google is not serious about its Maps app.

For me it's even worse. Here in Germany they're driving around capturing all data and taking photos but they don't update the StreetView imagery because of that huge blurring debacle back then when they launched StreetView here.

I see it as then wanting to do it right through curation. Contrast that with Google where they just throw ML at everything.

That seems to be their approach to a lot of things.

Often though this “curation” is never rolled out to a wider audience.

Take for example on site servicing. Apple have never offered that and instead you’re encouraged to visit your local Apple Store.

Except that Apple Stores are still not present out side of certain blessed locations.

If you don’t live somewhere Apple thinks is trendy enough for an Apple Store you’re out of luck.

I’m not expecting a wider roll out of routing for cyclists anytime soon.

> Take for example on site servicing. Apple have never offered that

Apple has offered on-site servicing as standard under AppleCare for many many years.

You’re quite right and I’m wrong!

Excellent, I’m sure that wasn’t the case here last time I checked and gives me hope. Thanks for pointing that out.

Apple Maps has been reliable enough where I worked that it was the default mapping app in our ambulance CAD (computer aided dispatch) system called Geosafe. We literally drove every road in the county and Apple Maps was completely spot on.

I love it.

I wanted Apple Maps to succeed so I’ve been using it from day one. It’s gotten much, much better. That said, if I’m going on a long trip where a non-optimal route is a big deal, I’ll double check with google maps and often (but not always) find a better route.

I also _want_ to like Apple Maps. But I always need to double check business hours using Google.

I actually don’t really trust business hours on google anymore, I have to go to the restaurant directly or just call since I’ve been burned so many times looking forward to dumplings/teriyaki/pizza and then having the restaurant be closed.

Its a pretty hard problem. Businesses typically only list their opening hours on the door and then those are prone to change without notice. Planned to go somewhere for lunch and needed to check in to a train station in an hour, turns out the lunch place decided today they open half an hour late so I had to quickly rush somewhere else.

If google could deploy that tech demo that calls a business on public holidays to check if they are open, that would be amazing.

This has become an even bigger problem recently, with COVID forcing businesses to suddenly change their hours.

Stores don’t even bother to fix their own signage when they change their hours. You’d pretty much have to crowdsource it.

I usually check the store's site or call. I've had enough entries on Google be wrong to blindly trusy it either.

Store sites tend to be less reliable than Google. Just last night I was searching one and the website had been out of date for months and yet Google had it right.

I've seen that divergence go both ways. Of course, neither source is as reliable as calling (if you get a human to answer), as much of a hassle as calling can sometimes be.

Hmm. At least in the US, Apple Maps gets their business info from Yelp, so it tends to be about as reliable as Yelp is. In general I find Yelp to be mostly on point -- not perfect, but not worse on the whole than Google.

In my experience, I find Google business hours to be more accurate than Yelp. Not sure why, but I think restaurants find Google easier or more important to update when they adjust their hours slightly.

On Apple maps day one I was an iPhone user living in Tokyo and Apple maps was like “what are trains? Here’s a 20 mile driving route through Tokyo”. Google maps was gone and I’m not sure whether to its on Apple or Google but my ability to get around was impaired significantly.

I was an iPhone user living in Tokyo and Apple maps was like “what are trains?

Apple Maps has had Tokyo transit data since 2016.

Tokyo got transit data years before many other cities.

The Apple maps debut in 2012 was when Google maps was removed from the Apple store. Maybe there was a way for Apple maps to do train/subway directions then but the UI was ridiculously bad- giant stations equivalent to Grand Central were hardly visible and highway names were highlighted.

>Google maps was removed from the Apple store

They actually removed it entirely? You couldn't install google maps in any way?

It wasn’t that Apple removed Google Maps from App Store. Maps.app on iPhone were using Google Maps data prior to iOS 6. Google Maps the app didn’t existed when Apple switched to use Apple Maps.

Timeline:

Sep 19, 2012 - iOS 6

Dec 13, 2012 - Google Maps launched on App Store

8 years later, Apple Maps still doesn't show buildings in Russia, even in largest cities. So it's essentially useless for actual navigation. It's okay-ish when all you want is to see a point on a map in a city you know, and that's about it. Out of other companies, Yandex and Google have by far more detailed maps.

This leaves me with one question — why does Apple reinvent it anyway? Why can't they just use ridiculously detailed OpenStreetMap data (with appropriate attribution) and call it a day?

> why does Apple reinvent it anyway?

Because Apple learnt a long time ago that something essential needs to be in their hands; third parties let Apple down.

Google let Apple down by refusing to allow Apple to craft vector-based maps, only allowing Apple to download bitmaps. Thus Apple Maps.

Intel let Apple down by failing to predict where the market was moving since about 2012 or so, with the Core processors not gaining much in terms of performance and somehow managing to guzzle more energy. Thus Apple Silicon.

Plenty of other examples where Apple realised they can't offer the whole package until they own all the components. The formula is "<Company> didn't do <Thing> and it impacted Apple's offerings. Thus <Apple Thing>".

Good point, except OSM isn't dependent on any company or person in particular. It's a community effort. Apple could as well contribute whatever improvements it deems necessary to benefit themselves and everyone else. They could write their own renderers and whatnot, it's been done many times by different companies. It would've been a much better starting point, too, than whatever proprietary data they licensed to get started.

> except OSM isn't dependent on any company or person in particular. It's a community effort

That doesn't stop Apple needing control, or at least feeling that way.

> Apple could as well contribute whatever improvements it deems necessary to benefit themselves and everyone else

They do. Apple uses OSM data and contributes to OSM indirectly (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Apple).

> It would've been a much better starting point, too

Who's to say? As stated, Apple does use OSM data. They use data from multiple different sources. (http://gspa21.ls.apple.com/html/attribution.html)

> than whatever proprietary data they licensed to get started

I detect a bit of a fallacy in what you're saying, that Apple wanting to have control over their own geographical data must mean that they aren't using or contributing to OSM. It isn't a zero-sum situation.

Probably why Google still has separate Waze and Maps maps. One is where users meticulously keep everything up to date, the other is where you copy those updates and can sell this as your own product/service.

GMaps changes their UI constantly, with what I perceive to be inconsistencies in what is one-tap accessible vs. hidden in the hamburger menu.

I, too, noticed the new branding which must be for-pay. Looking for something unrelated to food or auto over a dozen city blocks showed me where the McDonalds and the Firestone were, with logos.

I use maps for more than just directions: I use it as a defacto search engine for finding local businesses, phone numbers and websites. It is a GUI for geo-search. I wish another search engine could recreate it effectively.

> how much clutter Google Maps has accumulated on the screen

I have to use Google Maps "Go" (the light-weight version) on my phone because of all the clutter in their mobile version. Granted I have an older phone - Galaxy S7 - but for something that worked just fine on even older devices, I don't think that's a valid excuse for it being nearly unusable on an S7 now. Thankfully Maps Go is pretty quick, but the biggest feature I miss out on with the Go version is offline maps.

Honestly I think that's on the phone. I also have an S7 with extremely heavy performance issues opening Google Maps (and almost every other application, for that matter), yet my ancient Nexus 4 is as quick as ever.

Maps Go requires Chrome -- after download, the installer tells me Firefox is "not supported".

The ads on Google maps are getting ridiculous.

And YouTube.

You can pay $12/mo to get rid of the ads on YouTube.

Maybe soon you'll be able to pay another $12 to do the same on Google Maps.

The ad-free 'Premium Search' is where they'll really make their fortune.

NewPipe on Android solves this handily.

or just paying for youtube premium ...

With uBO on desktop and YouTube Vanced on mobile, you get the exact same experience AND save $12/month.

and you also don't contribute to the creators incomes.

I can understand people vouching for using youtube premium or nebula instead, but not this.

Small creators who need income will get barely anything, while the ones the youtube algorithm prefers will get all. So yeah support them directly if you want but not google so I think vanced and the like is perfectly fine solution.

meh, still feel very hypocritical.

You have found a way not to pay for something, good for you, but brandishing it as some kind of "perfectly fine solution" is just laughable.

Youtube exploits creators’ work to make viewers at a cost of hosting said videos. It would be a pretty symbiotic thing but with the recent direction Google took I would rather not partake. Also, I barely use youtube. And I used to pay for for example google play music but as usual, google killed it.

People who care about that support them using (for instance) Patreon, and that makes them a LOT more than youtube will, especially with the demonetisation bonanza as of late.

I don't feel responsible for creators' incomes. It's their own choice and their own risks — no one's forcing them to quit their jobs and rely on YouTube for their only income. Or, simply put, "implicit contracts" aren't a thing for me.

Anyway, many, if not most, youtubers have pateron now in case you want to contribute to their incomes without feeding surveillance capitalism.

I'd sooner stop using YouTube altogether.

If paying for Google's services acted as an opt-out from their surveillance then I might consider it; but they'd never give users the opportunity to not have Google looking over their shoulder.

stopping using youtube altogether I would actually understand

I would if more non-commercial and non-monetized content were uploaded to Archive.org.

What issues do you have with Apple maps? I started using it a few months ago and haven't even bothered to install google maps. The only things I have seen lacking is traffic data which I don't really care about and street view which I just use the web version for.

I try to use Apple Maps when I can because the app is much simpler, smoother, and impacts the battery a lot less. I find the traffic data to be good. But it's still lacking in quite a few areas (in western Europe at least). Basically for now it's usable if you already know where you're going, and it's not a long road trip, and you're not cycling.

- Their data isn't as good. Easily half the businesses are missing, and most businesses don't have details like hours. Even the road type and quality is unreliable in some areas, leading the routing to prefer bad roads that are technically shorter in length but worse in time in reality.

- No reviews, although it's coming in the future it seems.

- Speed limits aren't indicated.

- Speed traps aren't indicated.

- No cycling directions even in major cities, although it's coming slowly.

- It doesn't display areas of interest, like Google Maps does in yellow. That is essential in a city you're not familiar with, to know where to go to find active streets.

- No street view in most places, although it's also coming slowly. I find it very useful quite often, like finding a street with free parking before navigating there.

- Transit directions use theoretical schedules, not real-time. Google Maps doesn't either, but Citymapper/Transit does.

- It doesn't have data on "busy times".

I wish there was a way to contribute more efficiently to the map. That app is improving slowly but it could be much faster with trusted local mappers (or local employed mappers).

In my opinion Apple Maps could "easily" get a significant lead on Google Maps if they added toll prices, especially if it optimized your route for time vs price. It's a major feature missing from every service now.

I use the pills daily. One-tap access to gas stations and coffee shops is pretty useful when you’re on the road.

The AR button however is incredibly annoying as I seem to activate it by mistake a little too often.

Totally agree on that AR button!

I’d use Apple Maps if they got rid of Yelp.

This is from the summer, but at least we know they are working on native ratings.

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/apple-maps-new-ratings-...

Wow. Great news. Can't wait! Really looking to ditch Google Maps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com