Agreed! This happens with my own app as well! Apparently the app title, even when an exact match to your search query, is no longer considered important.
If there is one thing Apple truly fails at, it is search.
...don't forget maps. They failed at that too. But I can tell you that it was not necessarily Apple that failed at maps. The same problems I had with Apple maps were there in Magellan GPS and their map and content provider Navteq....which is Apple Maps' map, nav, and data provider.
Ever notice when you were doing the turn-by-turn directions that there is a lag in the marker that leads you to miss or almost miss turns, especially in complex intersections....that lag was a huge issue 8 years ago, as it is today. In all that time, Navteq did very little, it seems, to improve routing, maps, or navigation. I was just using Apple Maps yesterday (I'm a very patient and open minded person that gives several unbiased opportunities) when I was told to go around this very short road segment. Turns out it was probably because the segment it marked as "No Thru Trucks". Those Navteq annoyances are what made Magellan GPS horrible and after who knows how long of doing nothing to improve them, Navteq has brought Apple to its knees.
One of Apple's biggest failings in its Maps, though, was its search. Many many users were reporting that searches would take them to entirely different areas if they weren't worded perfectly.
The Android Market had this same problem in the early days. It was frustrating but pretty amusing how terrible Google, of all companies, was at getting search right in their app store.
The app named "Child Books" comes after coloring book, Nook, WebMD and many others. It's just that popularity matters MUCH much more than what you actually search for, and it takes days from the moment of getting popular (Google Maps style) to the moment when the algorithms start noticing.
A better way to search for an app called "child books" would be to use quotes around it.[1]
But I agree, Google Play's search can still be improved. Currently a search for GTA vice city [2] places the actual game in third place behind other related apps. These apps are The important thing to note is that both these apps have 100,000+ downloads while the game is <50,000 right now. So the number of downloads is given a higher weight than name (as it should be.) But the actual game should get a better rank than other things. As time goes on and more sites link to the game and more people download it, this will improve.
> Currently a search for GTA vice city [2] places the actual game in third place behind other related apps.
Looks like that's already changed in the last 3 hours. Now shows up in first place for me.
Third place is currently some ripoff scam app, which is another problem. (Is there any way to report clear ripoff/spam apps from the web storefront? Had to into Google Play to report "objectionable content", which was the closest I could find to a fraud report.)
Granted, but, seriously, Apple has never even feigned search-fu and MS/Bing has a better chance of making search even a competition.
On a side note, and this might titillate you; I am seeing serious cracks in Google's search skills as their other assets lack search or it is rather clunky. Now if Bing just didn't suck so bad, there might even be a challenger.
Same thing happened with Gmail back at the start. I guess it goes to show that web searches are a very specific kind of search, and just because Google is good at that doesn't mean it's good at anything else (relevance on the web is one obvious way it deviates from pretty much anything else you search)
I believe that was a deliberate tweak in response to the throngs of spam apps titling themselves by the key search terms of popular apps -- and the throngs of users complaining when they idiotically bought one of the spam apps instead of the real app.
The best is the Keywords field that cannot be longer than "100 bytes", doesn't validate your character count until you submit the from, is unclear about comma/space separated values, and disregards pluralization.
Their search on the Google Play store isn't that great, though they now have a feature where what they auto-suggest when typing your query is usually what you want (for larger apps like netflix, ebay, etc)
The only problem I have is when I search for something that isn't there. Happens sometimes that what I want simply doesn't exist in their store (like, for example, VLC), and when that happens all of the near-hits come up. If I am thinking about it, that is the correct behavior, but it still strikes me as strange every time it happens. I think the reason for this is that I have become spoiled by usually only searching on the web, and when I search on the web it is very rare that I don't get any desirable results at all. Google's web search has spoiled me.
My best results for search appear when the App Store auto suggests terms that others have entered. So "docs to..." suggests "Documents to Go(r) by DataViz" or something of the sort. I think that Apple could learn a thing or two from Google's search-intent capabilities.
I remember when Android's market had a similarly terrible search for years, which I thought was funnier considering it was Google and all (although I think their usual algorithms don't work nearly as well for apps that don't really have natural links).
Frankly, Tim Cook should shut down the entire Apple Maps division. Who in their right mind is going to use Apple Maps at this point?
Try searching "Pier 39 San Francisco". The query can't be any more specific, and it's the most iconic location for tourists, and Apple Maps will bring you to a pretty shady area of town, only a mile or two away from Hunter's Point, one of the more violent areas of SF.
I am. I talked about it on the other, now super long, thread and my reasons boiled down to: I prefer how Apple Maps works and feels, in general for my usage it works fine, it has gotten better over time and if I stop using it it won't get better.
Horses for courses, if Google Maps scratches your cartographic itch then go for it but please don't say things like "shut down the entire Apple Maps division" as some of us are using it very happily and are watchfully waiting for Apple to start pushing their datasets forward.
No, I mean Apple won't get the many data faults I report, the missing POI reports or the incorrect POI reports. Apple has an entire globe to cover, it'll improve incrementally globally but improve locally for me if I'm reporting my concerns.
Okay, so then you are probably under the misapprehension that this is the main driver for improvements.
For giggles, if only 10% of people with iphones report one error a week, calculate how many full time people it would require to process them.
In reality, their biggest problem is probably operator (IE people reading reports) time, not lack of error reports. I would take a massive data entry operation to handle them all.
If they are smart, they will have realized by now that relying on user reports to correct things is basically impossible, unless it's an automated system, which has it's own issues.
In short: If you think crowdsourcing is the way they will solve their data/data quality issues, you are probably wrong.
So, we can either run with the assumption that people at Apple are idiots which seems massively unlikely, or the assumption that people at Apple are reasonably smart, which seems more likely.
When Google Maps was getting spun up, they relied on people adding POI, reporting issues and so on. This was a long, long while ago but it's still possible to report concerns to Google. Crowdsourcing will not solve it, but it will become a big factor in determining what they need to do.
Lets say 10% of people report an issue, and of those 10% there's 2% reporting really specific issues in one specific area of the globe, that allows Apple to then understand a key facet of the dataset and where it can be improved, that gives them knowledge of what issues exist in the current dataset and gives them the opportunity to see whether they can apply that on a larger scale.
More data, more input, faster the problem is solved. Everything I've reported has been sorted, things I've not reported but are in the same generalish area have been fixed. I'd assume Apple is running essentially a massive data mining operation to work out where needs work. If everyone jumps ship I'm sure Apple will continue to improve it but it'll be much, much slower.
In short: if you think crowdsourcing is useless, you are probably wrong.
Are Apple doing anything with those bug reports, though? In my area, bugs reported 2.5 months ago still haven't been corrected. (If you are seeing improvements though, more power to you.)
Oh come on. I like to make fun of Apple maps as much as the next guy but the reality is that they aren't that bad. Certainly a few more iterations and constant development effort will iron out any quirks.
First impressions are killer. Even if they're improving, there is a harsh stigma against Apple Maps now, much like Bing, because it didn't meet user's expectations. So users are being comforted by a familiar and useful tool, Google Maps, which many people can use on their computers (Why is Apple Maps not bundled into OSX? Error reporting could be done much more efficiently and abundantly).
At this point, many people will ditch Apple Maps for Google Maps. And because of this, they will suffer from having less crowdsourced error reporting.
By the time it's as reliable overall as Google Maps, they will need to have a clear advantage for users to switch back. Deep integration with iOS maps might be the key, but lots of apps will now be integrating with the Google SDK because of user preference. Tricky situation.
I think you are vastly over estimating the number of iOS users who will seek to replace a default app. I'd wager that the friction of not being one of the default apps will ensure that Apple Maps continues to be the dominant iOS mapping app for the foreseeable future.
There are a huge number of un-tech savvy users with iPhones that barely download any 3rd party apps at all. Those of us who have been voicing our opinion about Apple Maps and anticipating Google's new app are the vocal minority.
That's a good point, but "Apple maps being bad" is not only experienced by users, but it's also a meme that's swept through the media as well.
Don't forget how valuable it is to be at the top of the "free apps" section in the app store, too. If/when people discover the app, they might like it more than the default app.
Apple Maps is the native mapping framework. So for developers who don't want to wander very far, Apple will be their first choice. And Apple will be Apple's first choice for Apple apps.
> Apple Maps is the native mapping framework. So for developers who don't want to wander very far, Apple will be their first choice. And Apple will be Apple's first choice for Apple apps.
I think developers will care more about better data than about the time it will take to import a framework into their X Code project. It's very simple to integrate either type of map.
oddly, just entering "pier 39" gives the correct result while "pier 39 san francisco" doesn't. OTOH, if you clicked on the "report a problem" and gave this feedback you could count yourself the saviour of the hapless millions who would have been lead astray by Apple maps and mugged or killed.
No wonder he is the CEO and you aren't. Think LOOOOONG term, in a few years Apple will catch Google for the most part (hello AAPL bank accounts and increase of usage!) and Apple will not depend on a major competitor for a crucial aspect of the mobile world. Google is the loser, despite Apple having a few growing pains.
A good CEO knows when to stop throwing good money after bad. Apple will NEVER reach the search domain expertise of Google, and Maps is too valuable to let turn into a complete debacle, as Apple has learned.
We have given Apple so much money THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH IT. They have $120B in the bank, more cash than any other company has ever had. They can buy very famous companies for cash, like Cisco, Dell, Facebook, etc, and even banks like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc. This is a crazy amount of cash, and they are clueless as what to do with it.
I know what I would do, I would throw some of that money to improve the quality of my product for the sake of my hundreds of millions of customers. I would admit defeat, and I would pay Google for a license in perpetuity for Google Maps to be on iPhone. I would engage in some sort of rev/data share with the Maps app and throw them a few billion. Win-Win-Win for everyone.
Sure, maybe Apple doesn't extract every single red cent from the deal, but money is of secondary or tertiary importance here. Their money is already relatively useless sitting in a bank account making 0% interest. And sure, maybe they left money on the table, and maybe Apple overpays and gets the short end of the stick for once, but it's called taking one for the team. Customers get the very best maps technology and a permanent agreement to always have access to it, and Apple can stop being distracted by one of the most important aspects of a smartphone experience, which is location services. They can continue innovating in things that will make them money, like newer designs, etc.
>Apple will NEVER reach the search domain expertise of Google, and Maps is too valuable to let turn into a complete debacle, as Apple has learned.
How can you possibly say that? How was Android 1.0 compared to what it is today? Or Windows 1.0? In your view no one should start anything if they aren't immediately good at it.
What should be questioned is Apple's dedication to Mpas. If they're not interested in creating a high-quality mapping solution then they should give up.
What Apple should do is buy a company to provide the mapping solution for them. The same goes for Nuance. Core technologies of your OS should not be left to a third party.
The point is that you don't push an irrevocable update to a critical service, one of the few things that is somewhat likely involve real-life, actual physical safety, out to millions of millions of users. Yes, maybe when it was brand new, called "experimental", and people hadn't come to trust it, GPS/location stuff could be spotty, but the bar is raised now. While we can all respect that development takes iteration, you just don't force people to use your stuff until it's up to expectation, even if those expectations have been made much higher than they were a few years ago.
A few bugs here and there is understandable, of course. Any honest person looking at the situation knows that Apple's Maps app was not just a matter of a couple semi-serious bugs; it was practically unusable for a large portion of people, and it's an application where unusability could create real safety issues. Completely unacceptable handling on Apple's part. They could have pushed it as a "beta" or "preview release" or other "help us work out the bugs" thing, but they decided to force all users to engage it as their only maps experience. Apple is responsible for this severe oversight in judgment.
Apple needs to hold cash to finance new production facilities. If they want to suddenly make a new hardware product that requires new factories and a supply chain, Apple will be able to fund that and beat others to the market while exerting control over the supply.
Do you really believe that 1) they have $120 billion 'sitting in the bank doing 0% interest' 2) have no idea what do with it 3) don't want to improve their products?
> money is of secondary or tertiary importance here
no, the CEO has a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders to increase the market value of the company. If that is through implementing better features then fine, but don't think for a second they would do it for the "greater good" or some principled and un-business like reason.
Things evolve over time, you have to give it a bit of running room to see how things shape up before you simply label it a failure. Besides, competition breeds innovation and innovation is great for the consumers.
Well, no worries then. A few thousand people who don't get to hospitals or who end up in dangerous situations is not LOOOOOONG term thinking and can safely be ignored.
The problem is that a wrong map is a lot worse than no map.
If you don't have a map, you might ask a local for directions or take a cab if you're in a hurry to get somewhere that you don't know the location for. If your map is wrong, you are more likely to actually end up in the wrong place -- and then become that much more confused and make poor decisions while trying to find your way without it.
I don't understand why people don't get this. It's not a matter of being able to get places without our smartphones. I'm sure we can all handle that just fine. It's a matter of knowing that your smartphone claims to know how to get there but is wrong.
The proper response to bad search results is not to talk about how you can still manage just fine with paper maps, unless you're implicitly proposing that we give up on the electronic maps completely.
On the other hand, the earlier Maps (Google data on iOS < 6) also lead to wrong locations. But without alternatives, there was no profit in writing about that.
Once there's an alternative, it's a flame-debate, where each side gives itself a pass. Controversy drives page views. Nobody wrote about how bridges mapped to 3D terrain in Google Earth, but we get a Tumbler of iOS 6 3D bridges examples.
No, there's not as big a difference as you're implying -- because ALL mapping data is imperfect, therefore ALL smartphones are capable of actively misleading you. And paper maps can mislead, as well! (I'm trying to think how many "this place is closed/moved/never here" notices I sent Google Maps myself, because of the number of times I've been misled by Google Maps!)
A smartphone is not a replacement for common sense. In Apple Maps, you can clearly look at your destination and say "Hmm, wow, that doesn't look like sprawling medical complex, perhaps this tiny out of the way building isn't a hospital".
People have been misled by Google Maps and MapQuest and Tom Tom for years and years. How common are stories of people driving off of cliffs or other such nonsense because a GPS said so?
Yes, Apple Maps isn't perfect, but it's a long shot better than Google Maps and MapQuest were six months into the product, and is actively providing superior maps to the baseline of a decade ago, or even five years ago.
The danger factor is one you must mitigate using outside circumstances, certainly.
But aside from that there's also the lost-time factor. If Apple Maps misleads me far more often than other products (which it does), then I waste far more time (and gasoline) using it. That is a real problem with it, and one that cannot be answered with "ALL Mapping data is imperfect".
As for Apple Maps being better than the baseline from five years ago, is there a way for that statement to be useful that doesn't require access to a time machine?
While I understand what you're implying, you need to realize people depend on these devices. If they didn't exist, yes, people would find other ways (as they have in the past).
The question is not what they did BEFORE the smartphone, but what they do now. What they do now is to use the maps application that came with the device they bought.
I think people need to ask their parents, "hey mum, dad, how did you use to find things before smartphones?" and they'll point out things like road signage and maps, and asking people for directions.
We've really only had mobile mapping for about 7-8 years now, it's amazing how quickly people have forgotten how to get places without it.
I highly doubt Google Maps has reached its peak. You're constantly hearing about new things being added, such as the Photosphere feature in Android 4.2 letting people take 360 deg indoor pictures and attach them to buildings on Google Maps, or doing an underwater "Street View" at the Great Barrier Reef. Just a few weeks ago, 3D structures appeared on Google Maps for my parents' house in the suburban Midwest. Google Maps is constantly advancing.
By the same token, stating that Apple will never catch them is pretty weak too. in fact this whole line of thinking is pretty weak. It really is a school yard "my dad is bigger than your dad..." style of reasoning.
I never stated that? The line of thinking was to not make assumptions. And if they were to what were they basing there assumptions on. Not sure how that is school yard logic.
Thinking long term, it seems to me shutting down the entire maps division may prevent the possible reality you have just presented from ever occurring.
Edit: somehow I screwed up my response, should be a response to @kjackson2012.
Apple's main issues are with their location information from TomTom. If apple is able to partner with a company with better data, these types of problems should not be nearly as bad.
Here's where Apple's maps product is better... The maps are vector based so there is not such a huge dependence on a data connection. I live near the pine barrens in NJ and google maps is mostly worthless when I venture into that abyss. Apple maps has worked flawlessly for me there. Locations where data connections are poor, apple maps will probably be a better solution. Plus, Apple maps look nicer, but that is hardly a critical feature.
To say apple should just give up is silly. I've used google navigation since the first day the alpha was leaked. It has only been in the last year that nav has gotten so good (used to have maddening ui problems with the zoom going crazy). Apple's initial maps release is much better and more refined than what google initially release. Fortunately for apple, I think they'll get their data issues mostly fix in 2013 and have a very nice alternative to google maps.
No, you're wrong. It's not with the data. It's with Apple's ability to search. Like I said below, look up "Pier 39 San Francisco". This is a dead simple query, extremely specific, and they point you to a really bad area of SF. This isn't Tom Tom data, it's how Apple resolves this query to something useful.
Search is Google's domain expertise. Apple needs to basically start from scratch and figure out how to create a search engine that will return relevant data based on queries.
It's the same thing with Apple's App store search, it's also terrible. But because we have no choice, we are forced to use it, and hopefully it will improve. But because Google's is so nearly perfect and getting better all the time, why would someone go ahead and use Apple's terrible search engine to help them improve their search?
Having played with a toy geolocation feature detector for text, I can safely say it's extremely hard to do well.
My first attempt is inspired by Peter Norvig's spelling corrector using a corpus built from the places2k.txt file, but it gets confused when the words are transposed. My guess is that Google is using some sort of n-gram based approach for maps and search, where as their little sidebar map is similar to what I built. (Or only applied to the most clear-cut n-gram—a little while ago there was a search for the movie "The end of the world" that would return a definitive date, which went slightly viral.)
Try searching in Google for "San Francisco" versus "Francisco San." Maps is fine, the search is fine, but only the first version brings up the little related info sidebar on the search page.
I'm surprised that Apple had such a hard time dealing with search, since they have some experience with Siri. I should have trusted this guy's opinion more:
> Try searching in Google for "San Francisco" versus "Francisco San."
On the other hand, that's not a mistake you can make, because "San Francisco" in the minds of people really is "Sanfrancisco", a single word. Why would anybody spell "San Francisco" as "Francisco San"? In fact Google should differentiate heavily between these 2 terms, as they aren't similar at all.
Google also does a lot of other neat things, like translations for city names. Searching on google.com for "Bucuresti" (my town) brings up the sidebar for "Bucharest".
And on GMaps, I'm never afraid of using "str", "strada", "soseaua", "sos" which are different Romanian words and abbreviations for "street". The results aren't the same in these cases (nor they should be actually) but because Google also searches within the addresses of businesses it's usually able to give me an accurate answer to what I mean.
That's true about San Francisco versus Francisco San but I wonder how well Apple Maps does with "4485 Belmont Portland" versus "Portland 4485 Belmont" and the like.
It gets more complicated when you realize "oh, yeah I need to add 'NE' because it's in the Northeast part of the city". So now it's "Portland 4485 Belmont NE". If you were to think about it before you started typing, it'd be "4485 NE Belmont Portland" but correcting on a phone is so painful that you want to just keep typing.
I'm using a Galaxy Nexus and have been very happy with the standard Maps app. Last weekend the family was walking on trails and it got us back to the trailhead using walking directions. Neat. I've been less than thrilled with how poorly the phone seems to do with finding and keeping a GPS signal, particularly in a car on the freeway in areas I don't know.
Ah, Portland is lucky. Here in Seattle, we have roads that are 1235 NE 40th St (for E-W streets) as well as 12345 University Way NE (for N-S avenues). The latter, as you would suspect, totally breaks Apple Maps.
That is on top of the issue of searching for something like "1st and University", which takes me to some L'ecole in Paris, France rather than the intersection that is a block from me. It's as if they don't factor in your current location at all. I know on the desktop I frequently look at maps of faraway places, but I'd suspect that people tend to look for things near them while on mobile devices.
"why would someone go ahead and use Apple's terrible search engine to help them improve their search?"
Because at the end of the day I want to make choices that result in more flexibility down the line. I do not want to live in a world where Apple is the only OS provider for mobile devices. Likewise, I don't want to live in a world in which Google is the only reasonable choice for map searches.
This. Arguing to use an inferior product so that better products don't succeed "too much" isn't how things work.
Markets work this stuff out, you don't necessarily have to balance market share and consequences in your head (not that you as an individual really matter that much in the end anyway!). Just enjoy the products you like.
Nope. Apple Maps isn't particularly worse for me. The directions have been fine, and I like turn-by-turn. I miss transit directions quite a bit. I thought about what I was missing and I thought about how dominant Google is in search, and I decided the tradeoff was worth it for me.
I wouldn't make fun of someone for making the other choice either.
Speaking of tourist disasters in SF; when I was there back in May, there were a few blocks somewhere around (IIRC) Post/Van Ness where the GPS in my Galaxy Nexus would actually pick up a mile or so off from where I actually was. Realized what was happening right away and still know how to read maps[0]; but could easily be a problem for anyone who isn't paying attention to everything.
[0] Semi-related: whoever decided to stamp street names into SF sidewalks: thank you.
It seems to be both. I tried two locations in the Apple store, and the data for both was incorrect:
* One gave a location about 10-15 miles away (with a pop-up showing details of the correct venue). I checked the correct location, and nothing was marked on the map. (Image: http://i.imgur.com/FHVax.jpg - the proper location is just above the 'd' in Cambridge)
* One was found correctly, but the listed information (phone, website etc.) was mostly incorrect.
* Satellite images are of a much lower resolution than Google Maps in some areas (e.g. my house!)
funnily enough when typed pier 39, the first auto suggestion was "pier 39" ( the right one) - the second one was "pier 39 san francisco" which i what i thought was the correct one and tapped on , but turned out to a restaurant named 39 pier.
Surely you agree that your example is a non-standard address. The things are more important to get right: postal addresses, searches for company names, airports, schools, searches for intersections. Of course you want to get the other things right like, parks (what's the pinpoint location of a park?) and things like pier 39. But those errors don't make Apple Maps a non-starter. I've been using it in the Bay Area with 99% success.
This isn't a pass for Apple Maps- the last 1% is the most difficult and it's the difference between so-so and great. Apple has in the past been known to make things with the ultimate attention to detail and things that "just work" so if anything you could argue that they shouldn't have launched something that was below this bar, but apparently there were other business considerations.
'Apple has in the past been known to make things with the ultimate attention to detail and things that "just work"'
I don't know why people continue to believe this. Apple has released versions of the Finder with amateurish bugs that delete files[1] and versions of Mail that randomly delete messages[2]. Several versions of Mail on iPhone send hundreds of copies of a message when emailing a link from Safari[3].
The Maps fiasco is not a departure from software excellence on the part of Apple, but just more of what we should expect by now: shiny stuff that doesn't work.
Give me a break. Name an international company with 100% success in user happiness and usability with their product(s). Go ahead, try it.
Also, don't act like Android hasn't had faults and failings on their own. Or Windows.
Things aren't ever perfect. The only time there is a real binary system is CS. The world is gray, and Apple has been consistently better than bad. They've been good for me for the most part, with some minor annoyances sure, but to say that their software is "shiny stuff that doesn't work" just shows that you aren't really well versed in the domain that the hyperbole is supposed to explain.
I didn't claim that others' products were perfect. That would be strange. My point was that Apple enjoys an undeserved reputation for quality.
"Apple has been consistently better than bad"
I think my links show that this is just not true, but that might depend on what you mean by "consistently".
Their track record shows a cynical, almost sinister pattern of choices on their part: hoard $120 billion in cash while shipping software with a beautiful visual design that, under the glossy surface, is unreliable, inadequately tested, and, in some cases, demonstrably hobbled together by inexperienced or incompetent engineers: shiny stuff that doesn't work.
This is a deliberate choice, since with all that cash they could hire the best talent and make it policy to ensure that nothing gets out the door that would earn a CS undergraduate a failing grade. Instead, they've chosen to invest in maintaining the illusion that their software "just works" and is empowering, while harboring an increasingly obvious contempt for their customers.
ref 1 dates back to 2007, ref 2 is an isolated 'bug report' which no one else seems to corroborate and ref 3 seems to be written by you. You're not making any kind of case here for Apple being overrated.
"ref 2 is an isolated 'bug report' which no one else seems to corroborate"
It's one link to a report of a well-known, real problem. Apple Mail botched IMAP semantics just as the Finder botched file copying semantics. Both problems are reliably absent from real, mature software. And even in the one link I provide, several users are reporting disappearing messages. I would call that "corroborated", wouldn't you?
Well, that's the point I'm trying to make. It's not a hit the drawing board problem, it's a refine the algorithm problem. How many "if you google this string, you can't find the right site" problems have there been in the life of Google search? They continue to refine pageranking don't they?
Even with company names, they do a pretty poor job. Though it is getting better.
For example, a month or so back a search for "Northern Brewer" (homebrew store chain) made when I'm physically only about 2 miles away from their Milwaukee location would return only the location of their flagship store in the Twin Cities. Which I suppose is technically a correct result, but it's a little galling to have regressed to a mapping app that doesn't even understand concepts as basic as, "When I just enter a business's name all by itself, it just might be reasonable to assume I was looking for a local place."
Some are still really bad. A search for the Miller Brewery's bar, Miller Inn, produces a single result for a business called Fabric Inn in Miller, South Dakota.
> If apple is able to partner with a company with better data, these types of problems should not be nearly as bad.
There is none. As far as I know, there are two major providers for map data. One is TeleAtlas, which is now owned by TomTom. The other one is Navtec from the US. TeleAtlas is considered slightly better in terms of quality, as far as I know.
Google Maps used to use a combination of both providers. However, now they also have their own data from street view cars in many places.
And the TomTom data is fine. When Apple maps fails to find a POI, I open my TomTom app, and it always knows it - offline too. Apple's screw up is giving TomTom a bad name...
If you want to try out some other vector based map system there's Open StreetMap. I have no idea about how functional the iPhone apps are but OsmAnd for Android is able to cache all map data for Sweden in 200MB.
It is then able to do routing on that data for both walking and going by car, both from search and random positions pointed at on the map. Not to mention that it has information about resturants so that you can plan where to stop for lunch when going on longer trips, all of which without a data connection.
The pixellation here is your phone waiting to download the higher-res vector tile. While it waits for the higher-res tile it draws a bitmap representation of the lower-res tile "above" it.
They're not infinitely vectors. They're still tiles. If they were to use the zoomed in tile, when zoomed out, even with vectors, you'd get something unrecognizable.
It's the same reason that fonts and icons are brought up when people espouse the "vectors will save everything"! They do a lot of nice things but for something like Google Maps, I can't imagine how they'd implement "true vectors" in a practical phone-applicable way.
I don't see these blurred pixels on my phone, but note that this kind of rendering can also happen with a vector based map: The application has to convert the vector information to a bitmap anyway, for a given zoom level. When zooming in, it is possible that the app shows a zoomed-in version of this bitmap while it is generating a new one in the background.
By the way, it is not necessary to answer every single comment with a link to your screenshot. It is annoying to see the same thing repeated 5 times when reading the thread.
Same version here though the UI looks very different. I can actually reproduce what you describe but only at low zoom levels, which makes sense: the temporary display of a bitmap at the wrong zoom level is more apparent when the phone needs more time to render a lot of vector data (there is less data to render when zoomed-in).
Well, for starters, you're not using an iPhone and that's not what the Google Maps app for iOS looks like.
Regardless, your screenshot shows no evidence that the maps aren't vector based. You simply don't have the high-resolution data for that area and Google's UI is showing that to you by burring it. Apple Maps doesn't blur, it just doesn't show you any details. I like knowing that there is information I am missing, the blur is handy.
Curiously, I wonder what they do then because they definitely have the vector data in the backend. Google Maps for Android has been vector based for 1.5 to 2 years now.
I'm using google maps for android. When I zoom in, I can clearly see the pixelation of the tiles before the new tiles load. The google play store doesn't show any updates for the app. Where are you getting your information?
I have this on an old HTC phone. The UI is totally different, I think they have different layout controls for the "newness" of the phone. Having said that, it's possible the vector data is still being used, but renders to bitmap when zooming for some reason. I can't recall this happening on my S2 though (dead now, can't test)
But we're talking about the new Google Maps app for iOS, which is not the same as Google Maps for Android (its a newer ground-up design with different features.)
The new app is vector based and has turn by turn directions.
Google refused Apple access to both of those features in the original "Maps" app (in iOS <= 5), but they conveniently included them in their new Google Maps app. :)
Google refused to allow Apple access because Apple was unwilling to allow more Google branding and Latitude support. It was a breakdown in negotiations, not either side being selfish.
This comment is clearly unbiased (and correct), which makes it all the more annoying that your comment (elsewhere in this thread) about Google's early troubles with search in their own app store has been being voted down.
It's definitely vector-based. What you're seeing is that the vector tile gets rendered to a bitmap for display. If you zoom in quickly, rather than re-render the bitmap over and over, it just scales the pre-rendered bitmap. When the new zoomed-in tile loads, then it re-renders that tile.
Also, even though it's vector-based, there's still different tiles for different zoom levels. For example, with different levels of detail.
> I've used google navigation since the first day the alpha was leaked. It has only been in the last year that nav has gotten so good (used to have maddening ui problems with the zoom going crazy)
Really? I thought maps was better in iOS 3 than iOS 5. Maps in 3 was optimized to be quick even over EDGE and never let go of a set of directions mid trip if network was flaky. iOS 3 maps was actually faster and more reliable. (Still had my original iPhone)
I'ved used Android's "Navigation" app on different older phones without a data plan (only WiFi) and they've been surprisingly good about setting up a route and letting me follow it.
(I can't change my route mid-trip, which was maybe what you were saying.)
Also gmaps (for android at least) allows you to download map data for offline/online use. So to say theres a huge dependence on data connection is not true.
How many startups just said "ah fuck it!" now that Google Maps is back on iOS? Back when Apple removed Google maps I thought there would be four stages to this fiasco:
1. Apple Maps are introduced and nobody likes them. Google Maps are nixed and some bullshit reason is given for not letting them back into the ecosystem for a while.
2. A bunch of people see an opportunity to create something that Apple will buy. They drop everything and get busy.
3. 3-6 months later Google Maps are allowed back into the ecosystem. 99% of the newly minted startups go bust.
4. A year later Apple actually makes Apple Maps usable in iOS 7. The rest of the startups go bust.
As others have mentioned maps is an under appreciated 'hard problem.' (kind of like search in that way :-) When its done well it looks pretty straight forward, lay down a tile with your current location, populate it with things from a database that are 'near' that location. Choice of tiles and points of interest based on user preferences. How hard can it be right?
So first there is raw data collection. That is a pretty capital intensive process and its never really 'done' because the world changes a lot, so you need a data collection 'process', sort of like building a really complex software product that you can periodically 'tag' as a release and push out. The capital costs from either on the ground surveying, or aerial imagery. Its not acceptable to put a circle on the map and label it "Tokyo", there are streets and houses and buildings and parks. So the capital intensive part is taking aerial photographs, or satellite imagery, and post processing it into your tile layers. And that just gets you to one level of gross detail, there is so much more than that.
Because of the intensive capital investment folks who get map data understand they have a valuable bit of information. Its one of those things where it would cost big bucks to acquire it so you can sell it to others who want it.
Then there are points of interest, who are all the businesses in downtown? What are their hours? Are the streets one way? paved? gravel? private or public? Are there travel restrictions? All of this data can be gathered by on the ground vehicles but that takes time. (or a lot of money if you do it in parallel) and all that data has to be fused together into something which associates places with data. So think about how you would represent that vector from lat/long pair A to lat/long pair B was one way on weekdays and not on weekends?
One of the things that is really clear is that Google benefits Hugely from having their own in house search capability. That provides a treasure trove of points of interest. But did I mention search is hard? So any good mapping solution ideally has an in house search engine associated with it. Look at MapQuest, one of the originals, it was a search engine getting traction as a mapping application. Look at Microsoft, look at all the data they populate in their maps from Bing.
So there are at least three really really hard problems to solve before you can even worry about the user interface and how to interact with maps, data collection, data fusion, and web search. I'd be surprised if anyone felt they could just 'jump in' from a standing start and build a maps application in less than about 5 years these days.
A quality maps app seems like one of those audacious undertakings given how much there are to them. Sure, sources like OSM help quite a bit, but the amount of data needed (be it through one's own data acquisition, partnering, licensing, etc) is pretty massive. This is one of the main reasons the iOS maps had problems.
There are already niche apps for things like public transport, though you may need an app per city/region. Even those niche apps aren't always accurate -- the NYC transit apps (2 or 3 different once) I tried while there earlier this year didn't pick up on station closures due to maintenance.
Maps/transit routing/etc is an interesting problem, just one that seems difficult to do right as a startup (on the scale of ios or google maps).
An app per city would be great! Here in NYC, with boats, subways, railroad, and buses (and all of this x2 as there are private and public services), no one app on iOS fit the bill. Google Maps connects EVERYTHING.
Unless you had been building an efficient backend/internal tool for receiving mapping error reports and fixing the issues. I know Google's got their own very efficient tools for doing this; Apple might not have had the time to do this yet, at the time of their Apple Maps release.
Actually I think Apple won here. Google was refusing to release a turn by turn direction update to their apps. By developing an Apple Map App with turn by turn, they kind of forced GooG to provide it on iOS platform. Also, it is very difficult for google to ignore ios users.
How is that a win? Apple got egg on their face from all the bad press. They had to shell out a ton of money for 2 map companies they bought, money for all the map data they are buying, plus all the engineering resources to create the product.
Google Maps lets google have full branding on the iphone and can gather all the data they want from users. And they can have all the branding on the Maps that they want.
If I remember right, some of the reasons Apple and Google didn't agree on maps is that Google wanted more branding and to gather more data. And I also believe Apple wasn't too happy about paid advertisements appearing for map search results.
How much money Apple or Google spent is not really an issue Both are loaded, especially Apple. And unless the egg in the face translated to lost sales, it will go away.
Never underestimate the power of "default" and Apple can tighten the screws on Google Maps to make iOS maps look even better. Bottom line is that Apple is working on their own maps and that's a major loss for Google.
Apple engineered a process that tarnished a major iOS release, broke a key function on the iPhone as smartphone competition started heating up, prompted the departure of key leaders and basically ceded control of mapping.
In exchange, they got Google to release their own maps app, which included features that Google refused to license to Apple previously, and gave Google a platform to sell ads and make money. So users get good maps + transit + turn by turn navigation at no cost.
> Google was refusing to release a turn by turn direction update to their apps.
Your choice of wording here is rather misleading. Apple wrote the old Maps app. Google refused to allow Apple to add turn-by-turn to the old maps app. We will never know the true reasons, but it was likely due to Apple refusing to relinquish control of what was displayed to the user.
We do know some of the reasons negotiations for adding turn-by-turn broke down[1]. Google wanted more branding and Latitude support. Latitude seemed like a weird thing to demand since it's not a particularly useful feature until you realize that it's just something to get people to turn on Location History (which is the secret sauce that makes all these nice location based Google Now cards work).
How is going from having your app presinstalled on every device and being maintained, for free, by Apple developers to having to write and maintain your own app and put it in the app store a "win"??
There is no win here for Google! Less users (not everyone is going to install it), less data coming in, more money spent, having to hire more dedicated iOS coders inhouse at Google...
I think you're missing some of the major pros for Google...
With this new app, they control all of the branding, all of the upstream data gathering, and paid ads.
It may be a win in a similar way that the Chrome browser was a win. Google kicked browser competition into high gear in terms of performance and ACID compliance when they launched Chrome. Apple Maps may have had a similar effect. I hate to use "killer app" but a great GPS makes the phone a more valuable device.
I still have a standalone GPS in the car which we will definitely not need once we all upgrade to phones with turn-by-turn directions. I have relatives that pride themselves in not needing smartphones, but seeing turn-by-turn was very compelling.
My question which I haven't seen a definitive answer on is if Google had the ability pre-iOS 6 to do turn-by-turn? They already had it on Android. Were they slow on iOS, or were key APIs missing?
[Did] Google [have] the ability pre-iOS 6 to do turn-by-turn?
The original Maps app was written by Apple and consumed data licensed from (and presumably hosted by?) Google. Apple wanted turn-by-turn on iOS, but the data required was not part of their original deal with Google. Google was willing to license it, provided that Apple give Google additional data: presumably anonymized data about where users were for Google to use to provide better AI. Although it's quite possible Google wanted better hooks to serve ads as well. They couldn't reach a deal, so Apple went their own way.
Apple and Google were certainly technically capable of building Google-backed turn-by-turn into iOS 6, if not much earlier.
Wow, I had forgotten in all of this that the original app was written by Apple. So going back to the original comment of being a "win for Apple"- this does seem to have been an end-around past the licensing issue, but not much of a "win" for Apple. Google gets kicked out of the default app and launches a third-part app in probably the best possible way for them though.
That's an interesting perspective, but there are a few problems with it. I think Apple could live without the brand tarnish from the Maps app (mostly, the errors in the data). It's become a running joke against the platform and a bit of PR nightmare as park officials warn people not to depend on it.
The move to smartphones gave us powerful, handheld computers. Apple proved to be awesome in that space. Now, however, these phones are becoming small glass windows to cloud services that crunch large datasets to give you quick, meaningful, and accurate answers. With Maps and Siri, I think Apple is showing that they don't yet have the competency here that they've enjoyed with hardware and interface. I'm not ruling them out, but it feels like the game has moved to play more to Google's advantage.
I think it's a huge loss for Apple. They tried to break free from Google and failed. Apple users are now more reliant than ever on Google services to use their phones.
I would imagine that Gmail, Calendar, Search and Maps are used on almost every single device that they sell and they have no control over those services.
If Google would introduce a new feature in Maps, let's say indoor navigation, then Apple would be completely in the hands of Google for when that feature would be available to their users.
You could easily see a future where more and more Google services become popular on Apple devices. If that's the case Apple essentially becomes just another OEM like Samsung or HTC.
It's the consumer who wins in the end. The old model had an outdated map app. Now we've got two major companies competing to create a great map app on iOS.
My first thought was along the same lines. What if this was a long con to get Google to release what Apple wanted for free? Any bets on if Apple Maps is gone in iOS 7 and google maps becomes the system mapping provider again?
I guess you are confused. Google was ready to provide those features in exchange for their branding and also ability to display ads. Apple did not agree to that, and now Google has that option as being 3rd party app, which iOS users now need to explicitly install.
No one really won here, but if I really would have to pick up a winner, it would be Google.
Do we know these are facts or are these pundit interpretations of nods and whispers? I see a lot of people screaming about how it went down, but they are just citing thrice-removed speculation from a blog four months ago.
Now that I've read this, I was starting to think the same thing. Apple is completely capable of creating good software. They have all the resources they need, and "polish" is what their company is all about, so why release a sub-par app?
Apple has created and released loads of rubbish software over the years, but most people have forgotten much of it. Consider the short attention given to OS X Server / AWO, MobileMe, the ongoing security problems with Apple IDs, forcing people to have iCloud email addresses in order to sync the Notes app... not to mention the VERY long span of time where Windows absolutely kicked MacOS's butt in being able to multitask effectively.
Oh yeah, and iTunes. It's better-looking now, but it remains a monster. To call it sub-par would still be kind.
Of the difficult data problems in the world, creating an online mirror map of the physical world is probably in the top three.
Let's say Apple tried. They didn't know how hard it would be, so they bought all the companies they could. They realized, "shit--this still won't be good enough, but we can't give in to mountain view." Their only move? Release 98% done maps anyway and hope Google misses the iOS map spying ad traffic. iOS maps is perfectly usable, but it's not perfect for every situation (park layouts, transit, inside building directions, more sane turn-by-turn routing).
Google has been doing massive data collection for years (mapping individual internal building layouts? street view gps trails by bike? insane on a world scale.) How can anybody possibly get close to the polish of Google's mapping data (varying wildly by country though)? Apple should have made every Apple Store a base of mapping operations. They should have sent people out with gps loggers to run, bike, walk, drive everywhere they could. Someday a company will buy google just for its mapping capability and toss the rest in the bitbucket.
That assumes that Google's search ad revenue, and perhaps their growing application service provider revenue, are going to be tiny relative to this hypothetical acquiring company's revenue.
It seems absurd now, but on those timelines you could be right. If nothing else, a lot can change in 10-50 years.
It's a win for Google. Google was asking for a Google Maps branding in return for turn directions on the official Maps app but was refused. Now that Google Maps exists everyone can clearly see that Google Maps is the better one.
As I recall, the reason that Apple chose not to include turn by turn in the official maps app was because they early on had high-profile partnerships with GPS makers who had expensive apps on the app store.
Agreed. Google should have kept maps as an android-only product. Whatever ill-will Apple has gotten over maps is now gone because "I can just install google maps for free now!"
I disagree, Google's long term play isn't to "own" a platform and have everyone live in it (a la apple/microsoft). Google is an internet company and it's overall strategy is to have everyone on the internet. Because if you are on the internet, chances are you will use a Google product (by choice).
Google doesn't care about iphone vs android. Google only cares that you are using the internet. An iphone/ipad is an expensive device for well off people. Androids don't have to be and less expensive products broadens the market. A market which when broader, is going to be owned by Google.
Making google maps a iOS product only encourages more people to use the internet and thus google.
>Google only cares that you are using the internet.
Google also cares about its earning reports and stock price. "Using the internet" doesn't pay the bills. Google is far from a charity. Its a multinational corporation beholden to its stock holders.
Google made a strategic decision to piss on its mobile division to help its maps division. This may not have been the wisest move and considering how google stock prices have been falling lately, well, wise moves is something it needs to focus on.
I just hope google knows what its doing. Apple is ruthless against Android, yet google seems to be pretty easy going with iOS.
>Its a multinational corporation beholden to its stock holders.
Larry, Sergei, and Eric own almost all Class B shares which have 10 votes each. They control about 65% of the voting shares. So really the rest of the stockholders are just along for the ride. Google is really in this for the long game.
Between this and the gmail release recently I think that some interesting times are ahead for apple. After I told my wife that Google Maps was available in the app store she sent me a text with a screenshot of her phone and the message "I'm pretty much using an Android phone!"
Her mail client is Gmail, she uses Google maps, and she browses with Chrome. If google went all out with a Google Calendar app I bet she'd use their client too.
What does it say for Apple when an iphone user has apps for all of their big use cases provided by a direct competitor?
I think it's more interesting in what it means for Google. I very deeply live in a Google ecosystem - GMail for personal and work, GCal, etc, but I have an iPhone. The new GMail app isn't magical or anything, but it is good enough for my usecases, now killing any incentive I had to go back to Android.
I'm glad they're not using their power for evil, but they seemingly aren't doing anything to make Android even just a little more attractive.
Android is quite more attractive now than iOS, if you are willing to forgive consistency and quality of third party application. Most of Google's own app are absolutely fantastic in quality, and often are better or equal to iOS offering. Where Android actually shines is in how things get integrated to each other. There is no concept of preferred apps as such, and you can make any app default for any function. Share functionality is also awesome, and leads to interesting applications (Like sharing from a Reddit app to Read-it-later app, etc).
I would say if you are not too locked into iOS (having bought tons of iOS apps or something), you should try Android on a Nexus for sometime. Your only downside would be finding good, niche apps. In iOS store, even the smallest developers pay attention to be consistent with Apple's guideline and look good. It also helps that iOS design language has remained mostly the same throughout 5 years. Android finally got a design language last year, but not all developers have been keen to adopt it.
I came to iOS from Android since Android was on Sprint first (and let's leave the Sprint hate behind - my plan is awesome, and service is improving). First a Hero, then the Evo 4G, then a Nexus S 4G, ranging from Cupcake to Jelly Bean. I liked the idea of swapping out functional apps at an OS level, and actually ended up having to use ChompSMS because HTC's SMS app had a nasty memory leak that bricked the Hero if left active too long.
My issue was that I was never happy. I rooted and ran custom ROMs (Fresh, Cyanogen, MIUI very briefly) and even tried rolling my own, but I found that I was spent too much time trying to make it something else. Analysis paralysis, in a way. In a way, I think I prefer having iOS locked down, because it doesn't leave me with a persistent feeling of wanderlust. That, and having been on Macs for over a decade, I'm kind of entrenched.
I agree that Android is getting better, though. I revisit the SDK every once in a while (and am spending a lot of time in it right now for a work project), but even with the advancements in Jelly Bean, writing code requires supporting so many versions with significant gaps in functionality. The compatibility library helps, but it doesn't solve the issue. Having to pass Android from Google to the OEMs to the carriers makes a lot of hoops to jump through. I hate the term fragmentation, but it's really a problem. That, and the layout structure - one per orientation per screen DPI. That's a lot to manage for a solo developer.
I have, on my Nexus 7 and deactivated (but still functional) Nexus S 4G. It's not that compelling for me - which may be that they're both used mostly on wifi or offline, but not enough to make me miss the platform.
I've heard they've axed that rule, but generically speaking in business nothing is set in stone. Most app developers just aren't in a position to negotiate.
And as has been rehashed over and over, it was Apple's choice. They simply prioritized other things over Maps. Do not confuse not having a choice with choosing to wait until you were under constraints to make difficult choices.
it's a fair point, however, the way I see it, they had 2 choices: Release at iOS 6, release at iOS 7. We don't know when they actually started working on the new maps app. Choosing to delay for another whole year would have been a bigger mistake in my opinion. Apple Maps has successfully got me everywhere I've asked it.
Unless you are involved with Apple, we really don't know what choices they had. By all accounts their contracts with Google were set to expire, and they were in negotiations to renew. If those talks broke down and they did not have legal access to use Google data any longer, their hands were kind of tied.
You don't need to be involved with Apple to know they had choices. They knowingly relied on Google, and instead of planning earlier, they waited until the last possible moment to start putting resources into their own version.
They choose to rely on Google. They choose to enter those agreements. They choose to ignore maps for the first 5 years. They choose not to start planning to move away sooner. You act like they couldn't put any effort replacing Google until the last minute. It wasn't.
They screwed up and released a crappy product from choices they made. End of story.
Apple has acquired several mapping companies since 2009, so we can reasonably believe that they've been working on Apple Maps at least that long, and probably much longer. Perhaps even before the original iPhone release, given what we do know about Apple release schedules (they are generally long and drawn-out for new builds).
Waiting to release the original iPhone until 2015 when Apple Maps was absolutely perfect would have been a choice, but not a reasonable one. Bootstrapping with Google's service was quite logical, and proved to be very successful.
And Apple Maps really isn't that bad. Perhaps not Google Maps good, but better than what the iPhone had prior. It is still a major upgrade for iOS users, even for all its faults.
Who is involved in these types of conspiracies anyway? Are there Android "fanboys" that short Apple stock and then go on the Internet and... do what exactly?
It'd like to introduce you to this crazy person (I can't tell if they are joking or not, but they followed up with even more crazy, so I don't think they are joking): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4914414
I guess I don't really buy that that rhetoric is what caused "Apple Maps sucks" to be a meme for the last month and a half. I mean, are you saying millions of people were conned into thinking it was inferior to Google Maps?
"let's not make this more than what it is"
Which is?
I mean as much as you can discount this you must also for the same reasons promote it. Without knowing the algorithm used and downloads all we really have to go off of is release time and rating count and average rating. Both of which seem pretty good to me.
Honestly, I'd say there's a much higher anti-Apple/pro-Google sentiment than there used to be. I've been downvoted heavily for point negative things out about Google. The tech zeitgeist moves onwards.
There's a big difference between constructive criticism of genuine problems (such as issues with Apple Maps searching) where you may learn something and the "you're holding it wrong" kinds of comments. I'd go to reddit if I wanted to read a bunch of dumb repeated jokes.
Really? I submitted a story earlier about state police in Australia saying that Google maps are dangerous and it's been completely ignored. Ok, maybe it was a repeat of a story that had been previously submitted, but since not a sniff of the story has appeared, I'd suggest that the pro-Google/anti-Apple sentiment is far more pervasive here. I'd think were the opposite true, we'd have seen much more of this story.
I searched HN for this story and was surprised to not find it, so I submitted it myself. It was dead within an hour.
And really, thinking about it now, it probably deserved to die, just as the Apple story probably deserved to die. The only real lesson from these stories is that you can't blindly follow your GPS… and everyone should've already known that. But all that did get hashed out in the Apple thread and really doesn't need a rehash so soon after the first story.
So… is the missing story the result of pro-Google/anti-Apple bias? It certainly could be, but I can't say that's the only plausible explanation.
I enjoy hiking as a hobby and while I plan route with the use of a computer, I'd personally neverer rely soley on electronics when I'm out. The only reason that I suggest that bias is there is that the Apple story garnered quite a lot of attention, with much of the criticism extolling the virtues of Google maps. This was a timely reminder that they are not the panacea of mapping either. I wouldn't ever use Google Maps to plan a hike, they simply aren't reliable enough. So I take and accept your point, but will reserve a healthy amount of scepticism.
Edit: A case in point is the sub thread on search in the AppStore vs Google Play. I use Google Nexus and iOS devices and can assure you that the Play store on the phone is worse that the AppStore. The online version is significantly better. Discoverability is awful in both. This maybe my opinion, but it's based in real world use of both.
Following a late night flight into the Orange County airport a couple of years ago, Google Maps on my iPhone directed me into the ocean. I was lost, it was nearly midnight, and instead of seeing the road continue on like the map showed me, I saw the dark expanse of the sea.
Apple did not put beta on its app, and it eventually apologised and also fired a VP who was not willing to sign the apology .
google launches a map with beta warning and everybody going gaga on it, yeah their data set is better.
"Google Maps Navigation is in beta. Use caution.
Please keep your eyes on the road and obey applicable laws. Do not manipulate this application while in motion. Directions may be inaccurate, incomplete, dangerous, or prohibited.
Traffic data is not real-time, and location accuracy cannot be guaranteed"
I would love Apple to build self driving cars and display projecting to retina and bring it to market, instead of just announcing them like what google does
Google Maps optimizes bike directions for bikers using bike paths, roads with lower speed limits, roads with dedicated bike lanes, and even bike trails through public parks.
I'm sure the android part cares about how many people buy android and how cool it is compared to iOS.
Apple use their apps as a competitive advantage and Google aren't. Itunes supported Apple podcast & music players would help android. Obviously Google maps helps iOS.
I guess what I'm asking is "Is this helping maps at the expense of Android?"
Especially since Apple are clearly working to improve their own maps. If/when they hit (or near) parity, they'll have the massive advantage of being bundled.
At least before, they were maintaining a long term position as the major maps app. If they lose 90% of these users when in a year or two when Apple improve their maps, it would just have been a wasted opportunity to sell androids, especially the high end ones.
> Especially since Apple are clearly working to improve their own maps. If/when they hit (or near) parity ...
The thing is that Google is also working constantly to improve its maps, and has a far larger and more experienced team doing so than Apple.
[Besides the underlying infrastructure which forms the bulk the effort, now that Google has its own app, they have a very definite incentive to keep improving it (whereas in the case of the iOS5 maps app, there were artificial constraints preventing it from being kept up-to-date).]
There's no guarantee that Apple ever will hit parity; indeed, they may simply fall farther behind...
I think the bigger business case for not releasing it would have been unrelated to Android: Apple used to pay us a hell of a lot of money for our map data, and they chose to stop. So now we give their users our stuff for free instead?
but clearly they decided in the end there was a bigger business case for doing it.
I don't entirely understand how Google plans to make money, and I'm not always sure they understand themselves -- but they're probably right that if they keep being the best at what they do and getting as many people as possible (on any platform) to use it, then they can keep harvesting data from all those users, and find ways to monetize that data (rather than charging for apps).
I can imagine ways to make money from that. If 5 Chinese restaurants are all just about the same distance, and have relatively the same ratings, then you can suggest the person goes to the one that happens to have paid Google $0.50 in advertising.
Maybe they won't do this, maybe they will.
But picture that you're a Chinese restaurant, and you know people use Google Maps to navigate to you - you'd want Google's data on your store to be up-to-date.
Having up-to-date data from local businesses has to be very good for Google.
Now there is none. Android has already won, if not by profit margins then by market share for sure. Let alone the fact that (as others pointed out) Google gets your attention and your searches, so they do not care. Google created Android precisely for the reason not to give any vendor (Apple predominantly) power to lock them out of mobile search markets.
There's a PR business case in making money by acting in your customer's interests regardless of whether they choose to use your services exclusively or not.
The polarisation that has arisen between supporters of each company isn't something worth feeding.
I'll admit it, I am one of the 4-star raters. I took it down a notch for not at least including a "zoom out" button. I can double-tap to zoom, but I sure as hell can't pinch to zoom out. I think that UI flaw is one of the most ignored in all that exist in iOS.
Now Apple has major map services from all mobile platforms with a full-featured Google solution. Plus they have an in-house solution that will become better over time. Removing an image-based Google Maps app developed by Apple from iOS was a great decision.
Oh hell yeah, I just ditched my old Android for an iPhone and the lack of bus routes on its maps app was one of the major things I was missing. I was sort of getting along with HopStop but it was an awkward multi-step kind of thing. DOWNLOADING NOW.
Apple Maps: Better Product Design
Google Maps: Better Data
I'm especially missing dropping pins to share location and search bar tucked up at the top in Google Maps, but Apple's lack of integrated transit directions and putting me in random locations is a no go for city life.
I'm surprised this is iPhone only and not a universal app with iPad support. I frequently bring my iPad with me when I drive to act as a turn by turn navigation device. Anyone know why? Hope it's coming.
This is just another proving of products from FAMOUS COMPANY will hit the top of the App store with no reason.
Maybe it is the time for iOS Map Developers to quit the business.
So, what will be the next?
Wondering if Google could have waited till the start of next year before providing the maps ? Lots of last minute shoppers would have bought an android phone considering Iphones lacked a good map...
I wonder how much data the iOS app uses for it's vector based tiles compared with the Google maps one? Google Maps does seem a lot quicker than before.
Google Maps on Android has great offline support. Offline support isn't in this first Google Maps release for iOS but they seem to be indicating it's coming.
I guess I'm still stuck in the same mentality that I'm surprised at but I'm always surprised to see what gets iOS users excited these days or what problems it has: fundamental search issues the AppStore, the amazement of Google Maps being "fluid" (ironic given the tech powering it [based on koush's speculation]), lusting for the simplicity of the Google theme versus the plasticy-clear-bubbled iOS.
Then again I'm also blown away by the people here who want to:
1. Say that Apple had time left on their contract with Google. And simultaneously say that the solution for Apple Maps is soon and is easily solved with more data partnerships.
2. That Apple "won" here. I'm still at a lost as to how that is. Especially given the lack of an Intent system in iOS, Apple Maps is about to be relegated to a really poor position for Apple, especially given that users = more data = better maps.
These are the things that Android 2.x was criticized for. I put up with such incompleteness because I was getting something open source, powerful and customizable. It was a compromise. I don't think Android users are compromising anymore, despite the constant implication from users here that only poor people buy Android, or that Android is "full of ads", or that Google is losing interest in Android or just the constant implications that Android is still sub-par to iOS. I just don't get it when I read these threads.
I think there is some "vocal minority" stuff going on here, particularly with regard to the look and feel of Google's app.
For starters, far from being "fluid", Google's app consistently has a much lower framerate when scrolling or adjusting zoom level than Apple's maps app. It never even approaches 60fps even when running on the latest hardware, whereas Apple's old (and new) map application has always been really good about this, even on old & low-end hardware. So I'm really confused as to what people are talking about when they say it's "fluid". Compared to what?
As for the UI, the way Google's search input bar is positioned actually results in more of the screen being wasted than Apple's standard search bar UI. Those little slivers of the map which stick out above and on the sides are too small to be useful, so what's the point? Just pin it to the top of the screen and make it standard height like all the other apps do, thus giving the maximum amount of contiguous real estate to the actual map itself. There is a reason why Apple does it the way they do, and it's not just for looks.
I have mixed feelings about the detail view being at the bottom. I understand the idea of one-handed operation and I appreciate what they're trying to do here -- optimize for the case of browsing search results with your thumb via a combination of horizontal and vertical swipes, however I'm dubious of the value of it since you still sometimes have to reach awkwardly across the screen for certain things. Not to mention the detail view takes up more real estate than necessary, much like the search bar. It also feels somewhat disconnected from the currently selected pin due to being at the bottom, which is a problem Apple doesn't have since they put the details directly on the annotation.
Oh and of course you cannot blink without this app bugging you to log in.
That's because a complaint thread about an OS is about the last place to go for an objective look at an OS.
> or just the constant implications that Android is still sub-par to iOS.
It's because a mapping issue and some app store searching problems, (after the entire App Store team rolled over I might add) and a couple of unfavourable design cues don't make an OS.
The implication is still there because many who use iOS do feel they have a superior product. I work at a help desk and there is nothing I love more than setting up an iOS device on our network. Email? No problem? Wi-Fi, it's probably already working! I boast a 100% success rate with iOS devices.
Now I get an Android device. If I'm lucky, it's high end and running ICS so it will be at least as responsive as an iPhone 4 or laggy 4S. Now I get to discover all the fun quirks with this phone.
Oh it doesn't have that field, guess it's called something else here. Yeah I don't know why it's asking you to specify each layer of network security on the WiFi when iOS can do it every time without asking. I'm not sure why they use so much technical language when configuring e-mail. No, I don't know why your brand new Nexus 7 won't connect to WiFi or Email even when utilizing one of the many hacky workarounds.
And then there are the no-name tablets. Honestly, fuck Google and their lack of licensing for AOSP for flooding the market with these pieces of shit. I would rather troubleshoot 20 netbooks from cold boot than wait 10 full seconds for the thing to auto-rotate back to normal, wait another 5 for it to become responsive, oh it crashed! Oh well.
People still say it because it's still true. Not as drastically noticeable as in the 2.x days, but Google isn't going to suddenly eliminate the lag that comes with running what is essentially a Java VM. It's still there, it's pervasive, and it affect everything about the phone, from usability, to touch response, to accuracy and reliability.
I hope Google waits a few months and then rolls out a premium-purchase maps feature. Then, when Apple demands their 30% and Google refuses, Apple has to pull the app again and frustrate all their users again. Not saying that's what will happen, but I can dream.
As a developer in the App Store, I really hope they do something to fix the abysmal searches in it.