Apple promises maps app will 'improve'
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
That's a nice non sequitur, but doesn't really answer how they're going to solve this problem. They say they're working hard on it, but the scale of the data here means that you can have people working hard for months and not fix even 1% of the errors. "The cloud" isn't going to magically solve them itself.
You didn't think Google created all of it did you ?
Google started doing more than that quite some time ago. They even stopped using TomTom / Tele Atlas (one of Apple's bigger third-party data suppliers) in 2009. Does basing a lot of your map data on a source that Google rejected years ago sound like a way to stay competitive?
Moreover, one of the things I've seen mapping experts say today is that integrating a variety of data providers can make the maps problem harder instead of easier.
A man with one watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches never does.
Of course they can do it, but can they do in a short time? Probably not.
This is a rare but genuine example of (the modern) Apple completely fucking up; it surprises me that some people are so unwilling to acknowledge the fact.
And the 'cloud-based' nature of the app isn't entirely irrelevant, as it means that fixes will be available to everyone as soon as they're made. Users won't ever have to worry about running updates for their map application to get the latest fixes.
Based on what I've read about the problems and their causes so far, usage volume doesn't seem to addresses any of the problems except for increasing the likelihood errors will be spotted.
The fundamental problems seem to be around the way multiple data sources have been combined and in its current form I can't see how usage volume would improve this in any way??
It may well contribute to POI data and so make it 'better' but that isn't really what the complaints are about.
People should remember that Google has that POI data because the crowd entered and maintained it. The same dynamic will work for Apple.
Mass transit isn't an issue here, but I hope they get it to work before I go to Manhattan again.
For whatever reason Apple has chosen not to seek out the same partnerships. Maybe they will get round to it. Maybe they are hoping for a true crowdsourced solution.
That was years ago though, so things may have changed.
The darker side of crowdsourcing: My tenant didn't show up on Google maps until someone entered them, apparently just so they could then attach a really angry negative review stemming from a bad experience with a different company that was infringing my tenants trademark in order to steal customers. Good luck getting that kind of mess out of Google.
If you're fine hunting down third-party apps for all of your mass transit needs then you're fine. Quite possibly better than fine since some of those third-party apps cover places the bigger players have trouble with.
If you'd like a baseline set of important cities that work out-of-the-box and want to avoid third-party transit apps as much as possible...
Yes, we (americans, especially those on HN) get it. You have trains.
The conventional wisdom (for the past decade or so) has been that Apple doesn't release "beta" products. Google and MS do, but not Apple. However, this is clearly such a product (they must have known it wasn't as good as what it was replacing).
So either Apple is changing (which would be understandable, but still interesting) or this was just an error in judgment somewhere in the chain of command (which itself would be a real change, at least from the Jobs era).
It's just that Apple polishes those flaws so they aren't as glaring. And they've been doing this since the very beginning of Steve Jobs' second reign i.e. OSX.
Actually, I'd say one of the things is that Apple often release radically new things, so yes there are bugs, but it's so new and different, with much other advantages, that people overlook the bugs, or comparing it with existing offerings is an apples & oranges comparison.
In this case, maps like Apple are releasing are not new. We've had Google Maps et al. for years, so people have come to know what a maps app can do. Apple's offering is not radically different from Google Maps, there's nothing new here. It's completely fair to compare Apple's Maps with OSM or Google Maps, and in that comparison Apple is far behind/
Apple fucks up a lot. They're just great at making people forget within 6 months.
People want to say this kind of thing never would have happened with Steve in charge. Nonsense. This kind of thing did happen with him in charge.
Apple had a choice, no maps or some maps. I've been running the GM for a week or so now, and I can say over the course of a week the search and directions quality has improved noticeably in my area of England. I know it sucks they've crippled it but we can either complain about it, or report the errors and hope Apple iterates fast on it.
Sorry, but ripping out a familiar, tried and true application and replacing it with one far inferior is not for the users. It would be different if they had been more diplomatic and said to Google, "we're doing our own stuff, so, maybe you want to launch at the same time so people won't be all pissed off with our version 1.0?". That would be for the users and Apple could still have their own Maps and improve it beyond Google's capabilities within time. People would switch because it was better.
I have all Apple products, but as a fan I sit on the fence when the logic doesn't make sense.
A version of the story, that is at least as likely as Apple taking away Maps.app (which could arguable be the most used non-telephone app on the iPhone) and replacing it with something that isn't as good - Google wanted to put ads in the app, something more than "sponsored pins" or whatever they had been doing (aka, display ads).
If Google is making crazy demands, then they need to be outed. The company that does no evil shouldn't mind disclosing the parameters of their licensing. I can accept Apple's version of Maps with an explanation. As a paying user of their ecosystem, I deserve an answer as to why I have been given something inferior. Telling me to keep quiet, or wait for some milestone isn't good enough.
I'm not saying what they did was the best thing they could've done. I'm just saying there might have been other factors involved.
This new map app was such a lame move that I cannot understand how did apple shipped the iOS6 with it, if you have a nice person you can call it an early Beta.
The point is: their contract with Google ended and they had to come up with something. I find it interesting how everybody is blaming Apple when the core issue is that Google retains a monopoly on cartography data. If you wanted to create anything with a map you would be on the mud too, since Google doesnt contribute to OSM.
What will probably happen is that Google will release their own map, with ads. Tge same situation of the YouTube app.
As in, "Well, it wasn't okay before, but we've fixed a lot of stuff, and ...", and the filters that would have prevented it from shipping are losing their effectiveness.
It's easy to be blind about the quality of your project, or get ship-fever and think that you /have/ to get it out the door by (insert date here) or the End of the World will occur.
Then again, it might have gone out anyway. Who knows?
A fine example of Apple speech.