Google has an iOS 6 Maps app awaiting approval
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
I've been using the beta and all through it, there were no routing apps available for my area (San Antonio, so not exactly a tiny city, according to Wikipedia we are the 7th largest population wise)
Now that iOS 6 is out, I decided to give the Maps app a shot again. So I pulled it up, thought for a second since I am used to the old interface, clicked the wrong thing a couple times, finally got to where I needed to go. Scrolled through the saved list of directions that I've used in the past (very helpful). Clicked the bus button. Got routed to the App Store. There were 8 or so apps to pick from. Which ones sucked and which ones didn't, no idea. It's too new to tell.
Picked one at random, it's 99 cents, which is fine, I don't mind buying apps. It installs. And then sits there. Wait for a bit, maybe it's thinking or something (I'm on an iPhone 4, not 4S or 5). Okay, it's not. Go back into the maps app. It hasn't saved where I am, I'm back to the default screen. This time I remember so I go back to the directions. Click the bus button. Get routed back to the App Store again. This time the app I have says ROUTE. So I click it. It shows some introduction screen. I click the start button. Directions are blank.
Go back into maps, back to the directions, click the bus button, back to the App Store, click the route button, and the in the routing app, are two very different addresses than the ones I entered in to the Maps app. Scratch my head wondering how that happened.
Close Maps, close the routing app, delete the routing app, launch maps.google.com, get the bus schedule almost immediately.
I have no idea what anyone else's experiences are, but I have never been so disappointed.
Now as mentioned, I'm still on the iPhone 4, and I'm at the tail end of the contract, I believe next month is when I qualify for the upgrade without paying full price. I'm seriously looking at the S3, although the new report of the exploit via NFC is a bit troubling. I'm not particularly worried about the apps I've purchased on the iPhone. I've spent maybe 150 on apps on the almost 2 years I've had the phone, and as I was talking about it to a friend, he pointed out that as a smoker, I spend more than that per month on cigarettes, which really put things into perspective for me.
Never has Apple tastes so sour.
Not being in the US, google maps has never provided any kind of mass transit information. Apple's implementation not providing it doesn't really change anything.
The imprecision of the map, though, that's a problem (because it is a step back)
I'm talking about Google Maps in general.
> Google's web and Android maps clients both provide bus and train times for much of the UK.
Good on you for living in the 51st state I guess? Many still get neither.
My local transit authority thought this was a better idea: http://www.katbus.com
Of course, as no iOS 6 apps would have been on the store during the beta phase.
The NFC attack sounds way worse than it really is. Firstly, NFC attacks can not be made on an idle phone, phones need to be on, unlocked and practically touching the NFC tag, or other device.
As well as the fact that Android has technology that should mitigate the malicious use of NFC. I can't remember the exact measures, but I have read about it at one point.
I would think that NFC would be lumped into something around the issue of ATM/magnetic code skimmers, as possible, but not very likely.
not to nickpick, but 7th largest city in the US
http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/09/20/on-the-rumor-that-goog...
If I were Google, I'd hold off on releasing a Maps for iOS just a little while. It's firmly in the "killer app" category at the moment and might help spur Android adoption just a little.
Based on this logic google should withhold search (after contract runs out) and only serve youtube in VP8. Releasing Maps soon but not immediately for Google (which is what it looks like they are doing) wins in several ways:
(1) reap the benefits of Apple's Maps launch negative publicity for a couple weeks.
(2) once your app hits, more people are using your services. Google loves people doing this.
(3) and less people using Apple Maps and helping improve it. Keeps the gap wide.
(4) finally, if not approved, you can use the disapproval as another competitive advantage.
They can not expend the effort to create a google maps app for iphone, but that's not the same as being actively anticompetitive as they would have to be if they wanted to block search from iPhone users.
Similarly for youtube, google wants the widest audience. Wider the audience, more the ads and more money.
If apple switches from google to bing for safari default, apple gets to spite google a bit and google may lose quite a bit of traffic. This hurts Google. Google will never want to block iOS users from search or youtube.
Secondly, neither is a competitive advantage in smartphone markets. No one is going to switch platforms for either search or youtube.
Maps on the other hand, does not have much advertising. The previous app did not have any advertising at all. They got location data from it but they can get that from android phones. Google loses nothing if they don't release an app. If they don't release an app, it is a great advantage for android. So they have a tradeoff to make, whether to maintain that competitive advantage or release a maps app and gain some audience. If I were google, I wouldn't release maps. For the first time ever, android is way way ahead of iOS in one of the core features.
iOS maps is basically another ad platform... And with iOS 6 being adopted at a high rate, Google would lose all those "eyeballs" and crowd sourced data if they didn't release their own iOS maps app.
I'd also like widgets one day.
It also doesn't let you override core applications (in that it picks the first one either way), and last time I checked it if two applications registered the same handler and you removed the first one, the association didn't switch to the second one it just broke.
May have been fixed since.
> I'd also like widgets one day.
I just want toggles in the notification bar (DND, airplane, 3G, roaming and location would be sufficient as far as I'm concerned). Instead of the waste of space that Stocks is (yes I know I can remove it from the notification center, and did)
Hence "Apple don't let you choose which application to use" - it all happens at Apple's whim, and currently that excludes replacing system apps.
Everyone could and many did install Netscape, IE 3+ was just better after Netscape stagnated at version 4 for years because of a rewrite. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
Microsoft shipped their browser default since an OS without a browser did not make sense. The user was completely free to install any other competing browsers without needing to jailbreak the device.
If Microsoft actually stopped Netscape from running, could you imagine the backlash?
Which is not relevant, I fear. Action was taken against microsoft because they were a monopoly and used their monopoly position both to hinder potential competition and muscle their way into new markets.
> antitrust |ˌantēˈtrəst; ˌantī-|
> adjective [ attrib. ]
> of or relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business.
In pretty much every thread about Apple on this site, you will be reminded that Android enjoys amazing sales.
> Wasn't the entire IE shipping with Windows situation based on a competitive functionality?
Microsoft was found to be a de-facto monopoly on the desktop.
And in the same threads and on Apple blogs like Gruber's and Siegler, you're constantly reminded how it doesn't matter because Apple takes ~75% of the profits, and statistics on how apps are more profitable on iOS because Apple users are the premium users willing to pay and how many Android users are too cheap to buy apps. So if you're an app maker looking to make money, iOS is pretty much close to a monopoly if you're trying to make money.
So far as I know, Nokia was a leader in non/pre-iOS/Android app markets. For some reason I think their results weren't competitive with iOS or even Android...
I used it this morning and I was actually pleasantly surprised. My map experience wasn't worse as I expected, but actually much better with turn by turn.
The people most upset seem to generally be edge cases. I'm sure Apple will work those out as complaints roll in.
Google has had 7 years to perfect maps. Apple feels maybe a year behind in some respects and a year ahead in others, but definitely not 7 years behind.
The business locations are not so great though. It's a big mish-mash of really old data and incorrect locations.
It's great that it's working for you, but it's a bit annoying for you to just dismiss the trouble that many of us are having like that.
I love it how you dismiss 99% of people and the globe as an edge case by your anecdote of it working well for you.
Let me take a guess, you live on the West Coast where Apple engineers live?
To quote Steve Jobs, "Relax... it is just a phone."
> The biggest losers are Brazil, India, Taiwan, and Thailand (population: 1.5 billion) which overnight will go from being countries with every maps feature (transit, traffic, and street view) to countries with none of those features, nor any of the new features either.
To be fair, Apple's Maps in Bangkok is actually pretty good. We never have Street View until a few months ago (and it only covers central part of Bangkok). Google Maps transit was never really good here since it only contains data from BMTA, traffic is possibly the only thing I truly miss.
I agree, though, that Apple rushed in prematurely with a new version of Maps -- either they screwed up big time engineering/management wise, or their hand was forced business-wise (I'm leaning towards the latter).
So putting the "outrage" aside for a moment, how well do maps work on your phone, and did you notice any problems so far?
The difference here is that there actually was something wrong with the iPhone rather than people having a preference to using Google Maps. Apple is banking on turn-by-turn keeping enough people at by until they're able to squash the shortcomings.
Are there problems? Yes. Will they get fixed? Yes. Does Apple have to do an OS update to fix these? No.
People are finding major problems because they’re looking for major problems. Apple has failed to clear the hurdle of "as good as" the old mapping data from Google, but for most people I suspect it will be "good enough."
I believe this comes from the fact that you had Apple's turn-by-turn. Is that actually better (or a year better) than Google's turn-by-turn navigation that's been on Android for so long?
As for edge cases, that's the point. You have to be able to trust a mapping application with areas which are unfamiliar to you. A maps app can only be useful if there's a high level of trust, and when you immediately see errors in Apple Maps (some of which are clearly the result of overzealous automation, like labeling "Airfield Park" as an actual airfield) that trust vanishes fairly quickly.
For all we know, Google could have released their own maps app only to have it blocked by Apple for providing "duplicate functionality" since Apple bans developers from even revealing if their app has been rejected.
51% of the world. 79% of Americans "Edge cases," you say?
[1]http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=83
That being said, 9to5Mac seems to emphasize that an app was submitted and Jim Dalrymple seems to emphasize that it isn't sitting in review.
There's one simple way those could be consistent: an app could have been submitted and rejected. Google's and Apple's different points-of-view might even be giving us the contrasting spins on the situation.
Google wants as many people to use its maps as possible.
If that were true, they would offer the service for free. As it stands, for normal contracts, only the first 25,000 requests per day are free[1]. If we assume Google wasn't willing to give Apple a special pricing deal, with 300M+ iOS devices in the wild, Apple could easily be left shelling out a fortune each day to user their data.
What incentive was there for Google to back Apple's poor implementations when they can just release their own versions that actually bring the features Google wants to offer their customers on their own schedule, as they are doing now?
Such a maps app is more like a browser visiting maps.google.com - browser vendors also don't pay for doing that.
But what reason would Apple have to go out of their way to maintain their own datasource (and pay other vendors, like TomTom, for help) if Google's data already fit the bill? Even more so if Apple was going to be paid to use it as you speculate. A dislike for Android isn't reason enough, especially as this move strengthens Androids position for the time being. The only logical explanation is that Google wasn't willing to play ball, for one reason or another.
Good example of that weird "Google can do no wrong even though it's a company built on collecting information about users and selling it" nerd mentality. It's well known that Google was increasing it's map fees.
You are wrong about the revenue direction. Apple were a significant provider of revenue to Google for map usage. Below is just the article I picked but Googling for 'google maps ios revenue' brings up quite a number.
http://www.ijailbreak.com/news/apple-ios-40-google-mobile-re...
I suspect Apple were upset at the limitations believed to be imposed on them by the Google contract (no turn by turn) and it was expiring anyway. It was probably negotiated when they had no idea how sucessful the iPhone was going to be. Google probably also wanted more control to insert advertising and the fact the two firms are now competitors in mobile OS's and at legal loggerheads made agreement unlikely.
After all, all of these companies have faced huge amounts of criticism (Apple for worker's conditions, Google for its actions in China, Facebook for privacy issues), and they don't seem to meaningfully erode consumer enthusiasm.
"This new maps thing sucks. Oh look, I can get Google's maps again. Thanks Google!"
or
"This new maps sucks. Oh well, the rest of the phone is great."
Google passing up the chance to keep people who already like one of their products happy on the off chance that they can pry Apple consumers away from Apple doesn't strike me as the best decision in the world.
I think Google has a lot to gain in terms of promoting their services to iPhone. Android phones are just a part of the Google ecosystem.
Also, "don't be evil"
Fun times.
Original: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2012/sep/20/apple-...
Source: Google Hopes To Have iOS Maps App In The App Store “Before Christmas”
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tomtom-u.s.-mexico/id35568237...
Yes, it costs $60 + in-app purchase for more frequent updates, but still, at least it is accurate.
The hypocrisy here is just mind blowing.. And it clearly demonstrates the utter bullshitness that is there fight against Samsung
The only thing it demonstrates is that you have no idea what you're taking about. The app "functionality" is "being a map" something Google has never patented. The UI elements are Apples, as they designed and built the iOS Maps app.
The only thing here that's a slavish copy is your comment. Reminds me strongly of the comments of a million other uninformed idiots that barely understand the concept they are trying to deride, yet insist it is hypocritical.
Yeah, it's the worst hypocrisy to use assets you designed and a concept that can't be patented in a new app. I heard Apple has a calendar app too? Is that also a slavish copy of Google Calendar?
Apple didn't sue everyone who made a phone FFS. They sued Samsung, a company that genuinely did rip them off and try as hard as they can to present Android and their devices as much closer to the iPhone than anything else.
Apple isn't doing a single thing that's similar with Maps. They're just making a Maps app. Google doesn't own the concept of mobile mapping.
FTFY
Regardless, apple are still massive hypocrites for all of the many other features they rip off from android etc while being shocked and outraged that someone might do that to them.
http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+Apples+iPhone+Started+as+So...
>Using Maps to Improve Maps
>> Scott Rafer:
>>What’s missing from this conversation is that map usage is critical. […] Google’s maps are going to start degrading. Apple’s will get better. They’ll meet in the middle within 18 months.
>The idea is that you need to collect usage data to improve your data. The only way for Apple to get from here to there is to release what they have now and improve the data as millions of people start using it.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/09/19/rafer-maps
If Google Maps is approved, far less people would be using Apple Maps.
For that, you need LIDARs on the road.
Maps don't improve by themselves. They improve by complaints, feedback, input.
They also don't degrade by themselves. Unless Gruber et al are under some amazing assumption that Google now has no investment in Maps, is not getting street data, topographical data, traffic data any more.
Though, mind you, this assumption isn't far fetched. Much as some of these pundits live their life in the Apple ecosystem, they seem to be blissfully (or willfully) ignorant of the fact that "mobile Maps" is but one segment of Google Maps. Millions of people rely on it, daily, on their desktops.
Why? Because Google's business model is so heavily dependent on highly accurate maps at so many levels. There's been posts on HN regarding Google's usage of Streetview/OCR to improve their map directions, and it's absolutely critical that their maps be the absolute highest quality in terms of content and accuracy of that content for their driverless cars.
Google has and will continue to invest massively in maps, and no user feedback will ever approach that investment.
There is one way Apple's maps already surpass Google's: no advertising.
For instance the iOS 5 Youtube app never showed ads, whereas the new app store one shows tons of them. Sometimes 1/4th of the screen is advertisement.
I'm sure it will be the same way for maps. Looking up a bus route, looking for used cars for cheap? Oh you are walking someplace, wouldn't you like a bicycle? There's five StarBucks® on your route!
No thanks. If I need the better features in Google Maps then I'll use it, but I'll go with the ad-free version if it works well enough.
It's also worth noting that, like search advertisements, Maps advertisements have the potential to be useful. If I'm looking for a restaurant near some location, restaurants that care enough to advertise in Maps for that location could easily be worth considering.
For now. Let's not forgot Apple tried to push full screen, "interactive" iAds. While banners ads have been more popular, the extra screen real estate on the iPhone 5 could eventually become devoted to ads.
No, maps are not of any use if you can't use them and rely on them. It has nothing to do with how Google chose to monetize it. If your ad-free version works well enough - great. But the whole point is that the new maps don't work well enough.
It's easy to believe that Apple's maps will improve, but thinking that Google's will stagnate? Bah.
By that logic, Apple Maps would never reach Google Maps anyways as there are way more people using Android phones and/or web-based Google Maps then there are iPhone users. Regardless, the article "How Google Builds Its Maps"[0], which was recently submitted on HN, seems to indicate that Google improves the bulk of its map data through Google employees rather then through user feedback (although I suspect it's a mix of both).
[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-go...
Surly it can't be legal for Apple to potentially reject an app on such grounds?! and on that subject where is the talkative Google search update?
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/building-search-engin...
Of course it is. The only ways for it to be illegal would be 1. if it infringed on freedom of speech (no way that's going to hold) or 2. an antitrust action (which would require Apple to be a monopoly)
Apple is so far from being a monopoly, it’s not even funny.
Doesn't mean I like their policies, but the situations aren't comparable.
The fundamental thing that's lacking here is that third-party coercion. The government is never going to force any company to carry and sell products they don't want to carry and sell.
I really doubt they would have the balls to block Google Maps with so much spotlight on them already.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-11/ftc-said-to-prepare...
1) Build a product. Any product, doesn't matter.
2) Walk into Wal-Mart and demand that they sell it.
3) Watch them laugh you out of the store.
Stores aren't under any obligation whatsoever to sell something just because you, or I, or Google, wants to sell it in them.