Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

> If I lose screen space to ads in my native Apple apps then I’m out.

The article says "The project will apparently give restaurants and other businesses the option to pay to have their details featured more prominently in search."

It doesn't sound like it will affect screen space of the map view in any way.

And software needs to make money. Their map data is hugely expensive to purchase and produce -- Maps isn't just a little app like Notes, it costs $$$$$ to develop and keep current. Apple isn't a charity. If you're out, who are you going to switch to? Are there OSM apps that are free without ads with the same level of functionality?

View on HN

Apple make so much money on the hardware (and subscription) I buy from them, they can easily allocate a small fraction to features that convinced me to pay for said hardware in the first place.

They already do allocate that fraction. They have tons of software that is 100% free on their devices, and without ads.

But Maps is orders of magnitude more expensive than other apps because of the data. Maps isn't just a feature, it's an ongoing service. It's not unreasonable that they recoup some of the money with more prominence given to paid search results.

I don't hear people complaining much about the advertising that has been on Google Maps since forever. So I don't understand what's working people up here. These aren't banner ads. Apple is a business. And you can use Apple Maps over the web, without paying Apple a cent. You really think Apple should be a charity and do this stuff entirely for free?

So what? Maps needs more, so it gets more of the software budget. It all comes out of the truly ridiculous hardware revenue.

It’s not even a little reasonable for them to have ads. Especially since I also pay them a monthly fee for services.

It strikes me as more unreasonable for you to demand that companies to give you things for free. Honestly, it strikes me as some kind of feeling of entitlement, and I don't know what you think justifies that.

And if you're paying them a monthly subscription for iCloud storage or Apple TV or something, I don't see what that has to do with a Maps. You don't get Apple TV for free if you pay for iCloud either. Different services are different services.

Do you think restaurants should just always give you a free appetizer every time you walk in because sometimes you order entrees there?

I paid for hardware advertised to run Maps without ads. I am literally entitled to that. Apple makes plenty of money on hardware for that to be a minor expense compared to their profits.

If they were really greedy, they could require a subscription for Maps. I might even accept that.

I will not accept ads. I paid quite a lot extra specifically to avoid ads.

> I paid for hardware advertised to run Maps without ads.

Show me where their advertising says their hardware runs Maps without ads, where they make that claim. Because I've certainly never seen it.

Again, you know Apple Maps works on web browsers too? It's not only for Apple devices. You don't need to pay Apple a dime.

I really don't know what contract you're imagining where you think you've "paid quite a lot extra specifically" to Apple and they promised you no ads in Maps in exchange.

Has Apple Maps (without ads) appeared in Apple iPhone keynotes?

Not sure what that has to do with anything? Showing software in a particular state doesn't mean the software is frozen in that state for all time. Maps has gotten tons of changes since previous versions in keynotes.

I certainly don't remember any keynote ever saying "and we promise to keep Maps ad-free whenever it's running on Apple hardware!"

Only relevant to iPhones purchased based on those keynotes. Over two billion iPhones have been sold since the launch of Apple Maps.

Again, when have keynotes promised no ads in Maps?

Good question for lawyers with expertise on promises and product purposes.

I think the answer is obvious, no lawyers needed in this case. That's not a lawsuit anyone would ever win, since Apple has never made such promises, and iPhones continue to accomplish the tasks they have been advertised as accomplishing.

Lawyers and LLMs can incorporate your answer into their reasoning.

I didn't know Apple Maps works without an Apple device. Fine, they can require a monthly subscription or show ads to people that haven't paid for their hardware. But I did, specifically to avoid the ads on Windows and Android.

Why are you defending ads? I've never encountered someone insisting companies should do more of them, especially if they clearly don't need the revenue. Are you ok?

> Why are you defending ads?

Because I'm realistic about the fact that money doesn't grow on trees, and businesses only keep things around in the long-term that clearly contribute to the bottom line.

> especially if they clearly don't need the revenue

Pretty much everyone with shares in Apple would very much like more revenue because those shares become more valuable. There's no such thing as shares that "don't need" to grow anymore.

> Are you ok?

How about we don't talk like that on HN? See:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"Be kind. Don't be snarky... Edit out swipes."

I definitely complain about advertising in Google Maps all the time. The only time I swear out loud while using my phone is when I use maps, like each time an ad for a business blocks the area I'm actually trying to see to navigate, or each time it shows me where Taco Bell and Arby's is when I'm searching for something like "Indian Restaurant". You can argue that they need to do this to make money or whatever, fine, but don't argue that the user experience isn't shitty.

If I want to go to (for example) Buffalo Wild Wings and it shows up second in my search instead of second because some other chicken company paid for a sponsored spot then I’ve lost screen space.

I’m not talking about switching apps, I’m talking about switching phones, and I’ll save on the price of an Apple One subscription and give it to other companies. If all the options are doing the same thing, what differentiates Apple? It’s not their software quality anymore. It’s not their privacy stance anymore. It’s not camera quality. It’s not screen quality. It’s not price. I might as well shop around.

I was under the impression that the extra 20-50% Apple charged for just about everything is intended to cover these costs, in order to retain consumers.

> And software needs to make money.

A business needs to make money. Apple, as a business, makes money. They might want to make more money by increasing advertising, but surely they, of all businesses, don’t need to.

This. Apples execs have choices on how to keep making profits. Enshitification is a choice, not a requirement by some force of nature. Tim Cook could just as well sell his shareholders on the idea that really good and user friendly products can be sold for a lot of money.

> And software needs to make money

Each and every piece of software from Apple needs to make money? I just checked here, last year they made $391.035B in revenue. Is there any software from Apple that NEEDS to make money? Is this really a fair and honest take?

>Are there OSM apps that are free without ads with the same level of functionality?

The main killer would be lack of real time traffic data. I don't think there's any open source maps that provides this.

I assume this is "crowd sourced" on Apple Maps and Google Maps, simply by gathering data from people who are currently in traffic. There's no reason this couldn't be done with free software, if people opt in. Of course it helps if there are many users, so let's start using it.

I've never looked into this but I have a gut feeling that, for Apple Maps and Google Maps, they rely on a mechanism that is less battery intensive (and not exposed with an API) than what a third party app would have to do.

It's exposed with an API. Google Maps is a third party on iOS but still can do the same timeline tracking all day even when it's not open, if you have it enabled.

Do you know for a fact that that's what Google uses for traffic info on Google Maps?

The frequency at which it updates for me doesn't seem like it'd be usable for traffic estimation.

The higher-resolution frequency surely comes from people who have Google Maps open while they drive, for directions.

Also, slow traffic is slow. If you're stuck in gridlock, even if your location only updates once every 5 minutes, that might just be 5 blocks. Average that across a quarter of all vehicles and that should be plenty of data for block-level traffic estimation.

Getting more data from people actively using maps makes sense.

Where I live, between updates I see on location tracking (when not actively using maps), you can even walk different routes from one point to another.

That's why I've had the feeling that the frequency for traffic must be higher than the frequency for location / timeline tracking.

Wouldn't mind if they are not intrusive in user flow while using the app, unless the user intentionally search for it, they should not be shown unsolicited. It could also be a cool feature if businesses show deals to get customers in the door, turning the experience like a treasure hunt.

Google Maps sometimes shows ads while searching for a bike route, which can be dangerous when on the move. These are unsolicited. Hope Apple can design advertising the right way without violating user experience.

Can you explain more what Google is doing? You shouldn't be searching while riding to begin with, for safety. How are you claiming that Google Maps is showing ads in an unsafe way?

When trip is planned before riding all is good, but once route changes, I have to reroute manually, that is when I get popup promoted business locations right under my finger while I am pointing at the map - it automatically makes you click them, this is unsolicited and disrupts user flow.

It is distracting and takes attention away while for example, stopping, pointing and relocating the map at a red light. It happened several times, have several screenshots but not sure how to share them here. These might be edge cases that most people will not experience since most in the US don't ride bikes.

An effective targeted ad platform is also expensive to develop and keep current.

They either build something as effective and invasive as what Google and Meta have, and prioritise ad revenue as much as those companies do.

Or they stay closer to the ineffective ad network they already have in News, App Store, etc, neither putting their money where their cultural mouth is nor becoming an ad revenue behemoth.

Presumably you don't have to do much targeting with Maps.

If I do a search for coffee shops, it doesn't take much targeting to figure out I'm interested in coffee shops. Same with pizza or grocery store or gas station.

For Maps search results, I expect the revenue will be plenty effective without having to be "invasive" at all.

True

Moats cost money. Thinking that everything can be commoditized once there is inertia is how we all get Alibaba Maps in a few years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com