Google Set to Release iOS Maps App Tonight(allthingsd.com)
allthingsd.com
Google Set to Release iOS Maps App Tonight
http://allthingsd.com/20121212/google-set-to-release-ios-maps-app-tonight/
11 comments
That's very good of Google to release the new maps app before the end of the holiday shopping season. If I were an Android executive at Google, I'd be fuming that they're providing a workaround to the broken software of their biggest competitor going into such an important season for selling phones.
What does that have to do with anything? Google is going to sell the exact same amount of phones with or without Google Maps on iOS.
[deleted]
How do Google get their apps like this approved? Indie developers get rejected all the time for replicating a function that an apple app already does, but google has chrome and others and now maps?
If Apple want to distance themselves from Google, surely they could just not approve any of their apps.
If Apple want to distance themselves from Google, surely they could just not approve any of their apps.
Apple made a decision at some point (seemingly under pressure) to allow not just Chrome, but all "browsers" (a term that I feel needs to be put in quotes, as all of these applications, including Chrome, must use Apple's HTML renderer, and only thereby have control over some aspects of how requests are cached and the surrounding UI).
Hasn't Apple allowed browser apps that wrap UIWebKit well before Chrome?
I'm pretty sure there were already stand-alone browser apps in the App Store before Chrome came.
I'm pretty sure there were already stand-alone browser apps in the App Store before Chrome came.
Yes: that was actually what I was intending to imply; specifically, that Google wasn't blazing trails here nor are they being given special exceptions.
There were for sure. Opera is one.
Opera Mini is not a browser but rather a view into a browser in The Cloud. All network connections and JavaScript evaluation happens elsewhere, and the phone displays the resulting image and proxies clicks back to the server. Apple's sticking point has always been code evaluation on the phone, and currently only permits JavaScriptCore to evaluate code retrieved over the network.
Apple's approval rules/guidelines are not set in stone. They change all the time. A couple years ago they were very strict (and non-agreeable to most people), but since they've backpedalled a bit and have been much much leaner about "replicating already-existing functionality" - approving and even promoting calendars, notebooks, ebook-readers, browsers, calculators, mail clients, weather clients, etc.
I would think the recommendation to use rivals' products might also have something to do with the potential approval of Google Maps: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/29/us-apple-cook-idUS...
The "duplicate functionality" restriction hasn't been enforced for years.
Curious whether it'll actually have the voice nav, which was (apparently? allegedly?) at issue in the first place.
I guess we will (might?) find out soon enough.
I guess we will (might?) find out soon enough.
The three things I like about IOS 6 vs IOS 5 maps are the Turn-By-Turn Voice Nav, Vector (Fast/Rotatable/Quick to download), and, most important for me on long road trips - OffLine access to the Map Data. Here's hoping google offers all three on their IOS App.
Yes, it speaks turns, and even if you've switched to another app. (You can mute this 'voice guidance' if unwanted.)
Voice nav would be the only reason I'd use Apple Maps; If google maps has it I'm certainly switching back.
Without Siri integration, it loses the real appeal of Apple's voice navigation system. Being able to say things like "I need gas", or "take me home" without taking attention away from the road are what really sell the voice navigation on the device, in my opinion.
I realize Google has been adding their own voice recognition to their apps, but there is no easy way to activate it without having to look at the screen; a no-go while driving.
I realize Google has been adding their own voice recognition to their apps, but there is no easy way to activate it without having to look at the screen; a no-go while driving.
Have you tried Google's updated voice search app? I find it to be a better experience then, though unfortunately it's not built into the iPhone.
Google is awesome at software. Apple is awesome at hardware, I wish the two weren't competing, as the iPhone was better when they weren't competitors.
Google is awesome at software. Apple is awesome at hardware, I wish the two weren't competing, as the iPhone was better when they weren't competitors.
I have, and was quite impressed with the results, but without the integration found no practical purpose. The point of Siri, to me, is to not have to touch your phone at all. Something Google is unable to deliver on Apple hardware, unfortunately.
As an aside, I tried using the voice search in the YouTube app today and it wasn't working at all.
> Google is awesome at software. Apple is awesome at hardware
I think it would be better said that Apple is awesome at software, Google is awesome at data. Apple hardware, while nice, is nothing to phone home about on its own. I'm not sure an iPhone loaded with Android would really sell all that well.
As an aside, I tried using the voice search in the YouTube app today and it wasn't working at all.
> Google is awesome at software. Apple is awesome at hardware
I think it would be better said that Apple is awesome at software, Google is awesome at data. Apple hardware, while nice, is nothing to phone home about on its own. I'm not sure an iPhone loaded with Android would really sell all that well.
Have you tried Mapquest? It's had voice nav all this time.
Has the nav on Mapquest gotten any better?
I had an iPhone 4S for a few weeks last year and tried the Mapquest app. I found that it was terrible when driving down a freeway. Every time I crossed an overpass, it would assume that I was on the cross street, and recalculate. Then it'd wise up to me being on the freeway again, and recalculate once more. Repeat a mile or two down the road at the next overpass.
I would have figured they'd have implemented some heuristic that considered the likelihood of me traveling 70mph in one direction only to immediately turn onto a cross street. But at the time, that seemed to not be the case.
I had an iPhone 4S for a few weeks last year and tried the Mapquest app. I found that it was terrible when driving down a freeway. Every time I crossed an overpass, it would assume that I was on the cross street, and recalculate. Then it'd wise up to me being on the freeway again, and recalculate once more. Repeat a mile or two down the road at the next overpass.
I would have figured they'd have implemented some heuristic that considered the likelihood of me traveling 70mph in one direction only to immediately turn onto a cross street. But at the time, that seemed to not be the case.
The article was kind of confusing to me..
Does "release" in this case mean they are going to push the button to allow users to download it from the app store tonight? Or have they just submitted it and they are awaiting approval?
Does "release" in this case mean they are going to push the button to allow users to download it from the app store tonight? Or have they just submitted it and they are awaiting approval?
When you submit an app to the appstore you have two options: release it as soon as Apple approves it or release it on a date you set (assuming Apple approved it before). It's very convenient for scheduling app releases on certain launch dates obviously
[deleted]
The app appears to now be available on US iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-maps/id585027354
I get the usual error about the app is no longer available :( I really hope apple sort out their store problems soon.
Have iOS6 users been waiting this long to get GMaps back?? Given the blowout, why on earth didn't Apple give special approval to GMaps and push the existing version back into the App Store?
It wasn't an approval problem. I bet Apple would include Google maps in a heartbeat if it was free (and ad-free), but they had to pay for the privilege of having Google Maps.
The old app was Apple's maps app, that just happened to use Google APIs. And of course, to use Google maps data without letting Google show any ads, you have to pay Google. And if you have 400M iDevices, the number you have to pay Google is probably in order of >$50-100M per year (or something like that - I have no idea; just wanted to say that it's a lot). And even after paying that much money, Apple still didn't have turn-by-turn navigation or vector maps (the rumor is that Google wanted more user data and Apple refused).
So, Apple decided that instead of giving Google $500M in the next few years, to spend that money on developing their own mapping technology and be masters of their own destiny. Sadly, the result is laughably worse than Google's data, and probably will be comparable to Google's 2011 sometime in 2014.
The old app was Apple's maps app, that just happened to use Google APIs. And of course, to use Google maps data without letting Google show any ads, you have to pay Google. And if you have 400M iDevices, the number you have to pay Google is probably in order of >$50-100M per year (or something like that - I have no idea; just wanted to say that it's a lot). And even after paying that much money, Apple still didn't have turn-by-turn navigation or vector maps (the rumor is that Google wanted more user data and Apple refused).
So, Apple decided that instead of giving Google $500M in the next few years, to spend that money on developing their own mapping technology and be masters of their own destiny. Sadly, the result is laughably worse than Google's data, and probably will be comparable to Google's 2011 sometime in 2014.
> Sadly, the result is laughably worse than Google's data, and probably will be comparable to Google's 2011 sometime in 2014.
It will improve sooner than that. Apple has been rapidly making deals with data providers in each country. They never had those in place at launch which was why it was so bad.
It will improve sooner than that. Apple has been rapidly making deals with data providers in each country. They never had those in place at launch which was why it was so bad.
Great, so we'll just sprinkle the magic data provider fairy dust on their maps, and oh wait, yeah, it's significantly more complicated than that.
Look, don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of being able to catch up. I was part of a small group of folks that took GCC's compiler technology from late 80's to state of the art in the mid 2000's by cherry picking the best of the best from research of the past 20 years. It worked. In 5-6 years, we were able to get within 1-2% of the best compilers at normal opt levels.
But it still took 5-6 years. Getting good takes time. There is no magic fairy dust. The secret to getting the last 25% of the way there in anything is hard work and lots of tuning. There is no magic bullet that will suddenly fix everything.
Look, don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of being able to catch up. I was part of a small group of folks that took GCC's compiler technology from late 80's to state of the art in the mid 2000's by cherry picking the best of the best from research of the past 20 years. It worked. In 5-6 years, we were able to get within 1-2% of the best compilers at normal opt levels.
But it still took 5-6 years. Getting good takes time. There is no magic fairy dust. The secret to getting the last 25% of the way there in anything is hard work and lots of tuning. There is no magic bullet that will suddenly fix everything.
As someone who likes Apple and its platform(s) and has invested heavily in them, I'd like to believe that, but something tells me it won't.
I'm quoting John Siracusa, because I think what he said makes a lot of sense: Google does brute force (i.e., driving cars all over the world and having thousands of real people auditing the maps data), but Apple wants to get its data using "clever" algorithms. Clever algorithms is what caused [1], and countless other issues.
What I said above is debatable, but the next statement is (I think) absolutely non-negotiable: Until we see Apple Maps (or one of its partners') cars driving around the world (the whole world, mind you - not just US and EU), its data will be demonstrably worse than Google's. It might be good and usable, but still will be worse than Google's :)
[1]: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/11/apple-fixes-australian-m...
I'm quoting John Siracusa, because I think what he said makes a lot of sense: Google does brute force (i.e., driving cars all over the world and having thousands of real people auditing the maps data), but Apple wants to get its data using "clever" algorithms. Clever algorithms is what caused [1], and countless other issues.
What I said above is debatable, but the next statement is (I think) absolutely non-negotiable: Until we see Apple Maps (or one of its partners') cars driving around the world (the whole world, mind you - not just US and EU), its data will be demonstrably worse than Google's. It might be good and usable, but still will be worse than Google's :)
[1]: http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/11/apple-fixes-australian-m...
Where do you think the data providers get their data from ?
They have cars as well. And they've had them for DECADES before Google. And it's not like Google is driving around continuously updating their data. For example Street View in many parts of my city is over 3 years old and still missing many newer suburbs.
So no. Google does not have a brute force approach. They have just had longer to perfect their algorithms.
They have cars as well. And they've had them for DECADES before Google. And it's not like Google is driving around continuously updating their data. For example Street View in many parts of my city is over 3 years old and still missing many newer suburbs.
So no. Google does not have a brute force approach. They have just had longer to perfect their algorithms.
So why didn't Google just buy data from them?
They did, but restrictive licencing terms drove them to start collecting their own, the process is still not complete.
[deleted]
As mapping professionals have observed, it isn't as simple as just having more and better data sources. Putting together a solid mapping solution from many disparate data sources can be harder than gathering more data yourself (i.e. there's a reason all those Google Street View cars are out there).
See the frequently referenced: http://blog.telemapics.com/?p=399
It's also worth noting that Apple's local POI search has been a particular pain point. Thinking it will be easy to match or outdo Google here (when Google Maps often pops up the right POI as a suggestion when I've typed as few as three characters) is foolhardy.
See the frequently referenced: http://blog.telemapics.com/?p=399
It's also worth noting that Apple's local POI search has been a particular pain point. Thinking it will be easy to match or outdo Google here (when Google Maps often pops up the right POI as a suggestion when I've typed as few as three characters) is foolhardy.
Again. Google Street View cars are NOT going around continuously updating data. It is their existing data providers that are doing this for them. I know this for a fact. And sorry but Google doesn't own any POI data either. They license it from third party providers. For example in Australia it ALL comes from Yellow Pages.
If you do a POI search e.g. Sydney restaurants in Google Maps you can scroll down to see the attribution e.g. "Business listings distributed by Yellow Pages". Likewise for most other countries.
But hey I will grant you that Google Maps has a better autocomplete.
If you do a POI search e.g. Sydney restaurants in Google Maps you can scroll down to see the attribution e.g. "Business listings distributed by Yellow Pages". Likewise for most other countries.
But hey I will grant you that Google Maps has a better autocomplete.
I didn't say Google did everything themselves. That would be ludicrous and, AFAIK, no one does that. I said that gathering more data yourself can be easier than integrating disparate data sources. In other words, direct data gathering is an important part of the story and fixings things isn't as simple as "MOAR DATA"!
> And sorry but Google doesn't own any POI data either.
Some of Google's recent acquisitions would beg to differ:
http://www.wired.com/business/2011/09/google-buys-zagat/
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/13/technology/google-frommers/i...
And, unless you know differently, I'm pretty sure Google owns Google Places...
> And sorry but Google doesn't own any POI data either.
Some of Google's recent acquisitions would beg to differ:
http://www.wired.com/business/2011/09/google-buys-zagat/
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/13/technology/google-frommers/i...
And, unless you know differently, I'm pretty sure Google owns Google Places...
> Again. Google Street View cars are NOT going around continuously updating data.
I think you might be a little bit dated in your understanding. Google any random city on maps.google.com. Look at the fine print at the bottom: "Map data ©2012 Google"
I remember what that used to say a 4-5 years back. Copyright NAVTEQ. They have been quite busy.
I think you might be a little bit dated in your understanding. Google any random city on maps.google.com. Look at the fine print at the bottom: "Map data ©2012 Google"
I remember what that used to say a 4-5 years back. Copyright NAVTEQ. They have been quite busy.
Oh, by the way, I wouldn't trivialize what Google's doing with autocomplete. The way Google works on reliably guessing user intent from limited, often noisy input makes a huge difference on mobile. To take one example, search interfaces that can't tolerate misspellings are irritating on the desktop and downright painful to use on a phone or tablet.
There are lots of data sources other than Street View, satellite and aerial imagery being big ones obviously, but also user provided data, Business Photos, phone calls, etc.
The Yellow Pages attribution you see doesn't necessarily mean all data came from Yellow Pages, just that some may have.
The Yellow Pages attribution you see doesn't necessarily mean all data came from Yellow Pages, just that some may have.
Great, so we'll just sprinkle the magic data provider fairy dust on their maps, and oh wait, yeah, it's significantly more complicated than that.
The IOS6 Map is actually significantly better than the IOS5 maps (Vector, Voice Turn by Turn, Offline Access, Fast) - And, for popular urban locations in the United States - it's a significant improvement.
The people who want in-situ transit directions, want Google's much superior search experience, and those who got screwed over by Apple not covering their geographic area particularly well - will be happy about this upgrade though.
The people who want in-situ transit directions, want Google's much superior search experience, and those who got screwed over by Apple not covering their geographic area particularly well - will be happy about this upgrade though.
> "And, for popular urban locations in the United States - it's a significant improvement."
Disagreed completely. Pretty much the only people who have had a net positive from iOS6 Maps are the people who drive, and thus are able to take advantage of turn-by-turn.
Here in NYC iOS6 Maps is nearly completely useless. Searching for locations by address frequently takes you hundreds of miles away - "24 Orchard" takes you to another state, for example, even if you are standing less than half a mile from the address. Searching for places by name has a worse than 50/50 chance of finding it, and frequently completely unrelated results come up instead. Even when Apple can get the addresses of places correct, it frequently has trouble getting them in the correct locations - I've seen many instances of correct addresses dropping the pin in wrong locations - usually a block or two away.
The disaster of iOS6 Maps goes well beyond the loss of transit directions - the data and search components are atrocious.
The problem with bad mapping is that it has a thresholding effect. The utility of your mapping service does not scale linearly with the quality of your data - once your data is wrong above a certain threshold of all usage, people stop trusting your maps entirely. I do not trust iOS6 Maps because I have no way of knowing if it got anything right, and its failure rate is high enough that I have to second guess everything it tells me. Which is to say, it has become useless.
iOS6 Maps is a disaster for major urban locations in the United States. I for one am waiting for the Google Maps app to drop like a kid on Christmas eve.
Disagreed completely. Pretty much the only people who have had a net positive from iOS6 Maps are the people who drive, and thus are able to take advantage of turn-by-turn.
Here in NYC iOS6 Maps is nearly completely useless. Searching for locations by address frequently takes you hundreds of miles away - "24 Orchard" takes you to another state, for example, even if you are standing less than half a mile from the address. Searching for places by name has a worse than 50/50 chance of finding it, and frequently completely unrelated results come up instead. Even when Apple can get the addresses of places correct, it frequently has trouble getting them in the correct locations - I've seen many instances of correct addresses dropping the pin in wrong locations - usually a block or two away.
The disaster of iOS6 Maps goes well beyond the loss of transit directions - the data and search components are atrocious.
The problem with bad mapping is that it has a thresholding effect. The utility of your mapping service does not scale linearly with the quality of your data - once your data is wrong above a certain threshold of all usage, people stop trusting your maps entirely. I do not trust iOS6 Maps because I have no way of knowing if it got anything right, and its failure rate is high enough that I have to second guess everything it tells me. Which is to say, it has become useless.
iOS6 Maps is a disaster for major urban locations in the United States. I for one am waiting for the Google Maps app to drop like a kid on Christmas eve.
That's very interesting (and useful) information. It sounds like it's not "Popular Urban Locations" but instead, a "subset of popular urban location" - Perhaps I guess I need to be very specific and say in the Bay Area (Everywhere, all the way down to Gilroy).
Your experience, though, explains why Tim Cook felt he needed to apologize.
Locally (Redwood City, Foster City, Mountain View) I prefer to use the IOS 6 Mapping application on my iPhone 5, than, rather than, side-by-side, the IOS 5 Mapping application on an iPhone 4S. Forgetting about Turn-by-Turn (which is the obvious and clear advantage of IOS 6 Mapping) - the super twitchy-fast vector Maps in IOS 6 Maps, not to mention their offline presence made all the difference. Particularly if you get into a sketchy cell area, where the old IOS 5 maps was basically "No Maps" - compared to the IOS 6 Maps which are "No Internet connection required, here are your maps."
While in Redwood City, I send all sorts of queries out to Siri like "Directions to Waterfront Pizza" (It picks the right one up in Foster City), and "Directions to 3463 Page Street" (It's intelligent enough to use the Page Street in Redwood City) - I use maps a lot, and haven't seen any regression beyond what I would see in google maps. IOS 6 maps is as close to flawless as a generic mapping application needs to be for my use in the peninsula area.
I wonder if Apple did something remarkably stupid, and only optimized the Bay Area? If so, then they deserve all the bad press they've received over their mapping application.
It might be interesting to have some third-party do a "Here are 1000 typical queries in 100 typical urban locations" and come back with a scorecard. Given that Apple is pulling a lot of data from TomTom for IOS 6 maps, I would be surprise to see their results much poorer than what TomTom would do give directly.
Your experience, though, explains why Tim Cook felt he needed to apologize.
Locally (Redwood City, Foster City, Mountain View) I prefer to use the IOS 6 Mapping application on my iPhone 5, than, rather than, side-by-side, the IOS 5 Mapping application on an iPhone 4S. Forgetting about Turn-by-Turn (which is the obvious and clear advantage of IOS 6 Mapping) - the super twitchy-fast vector Maps in IOS 6 Maps, not to mention their offline presence made all the difference. Particularly if you get into a sketchy cell area, where the old IOS 5 maps was basically "No Maps" - compared to the IOS 6 Maps which are "No Internet connection required, here are your maps."
While in Redwood City, I send all sorts of queries out to Siri like "Directions to Waterfront Pizza" (It picks the right one up in Foster City), and "Directions to 3463 Page Street" (It's intelligent enough to use the Page Street in Redwood City) - I use maps a lot, and haven't seen any regression beyond what I would see in google maps. IOS 6 maps is as close to flawless as a generic mapping application needs to be for my use in the peninsula area.
I wonder if Apple did something remarkably stupid, and only optimized the Bay Area? If so, then they deserve all the bad press they've received over their mapping application.
It might be interesting to have some third-party do a "Here are 1000 typical queries in 100 typical urban locations" and come back with a scorecard. Given that Apple is pulling a lot of data from TomTom for IOS 6 maps, I would be surprise to see their results much poorer than what TomTom would do give directly.
Google Maps are hardly perfect themselves. Not so long ago (as in September), searching for "city hall" with the Philadelphia City Hall centered on the map would transport you to a police station in Chicago. Rittenhouse Square still has a random assortment of businesses inside it. Washington Square is labeled Independence Mall State Park. There's apparently a heliport in the Constitution Center.
As long as your definition of urban locations excludes Philadelphia, Google Maps are just swell.
As long as your definition of urban locations excludes Philadelphia, Google Maps are just swell.
Arguably it's a significant improvement for popular urban locations - if you always drive and never use mass transit. Something that isn't true of most residents of many popular urban locations.
I disagree. I am in a major metropolitan area, and not only is the data worse but more importantly, usability is worse with Apple Maps.
Your answer doesn't preclude it, but the features you list of iOS6 Maps are standard fair in Android and I presume would be present in a Google Maps for iOS. (That's of course not to say that the iOS6 maps isn't an improvement. I think the nav UI is quite pretty.)
Personally I'm still on iOS5, I've been waiting for this to upgrade to iOS6.
Yep, me too. I have an iphone 4/iOS5 and have also delayed upgrading to iOS6 due to the bad press and my need of transit directions. I have a car too, but I frequently ride the bus to the airport for longer trips.
And I still might wait for some google maps app reviews before I upgrade...
And I still might wait for some google maps app reviews before I upgrade...
The existing version was an Apple app, that used google technology. They would have to relicense the data to use the past maps app. I'm sure they'd rather spend that money to improve the new one.
They actually had about a year left on their license. Source -> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57520590-501465/apple...
Having a few months up your sleeve on current licensing terms doesn't mean you could sit back and wait for the expiry date before acting.
True, but releasing a beta of your potential replacement (for example), is another way of acting.
Really? Jeez the doublethink in this thread is strong. Why is the alternative to "keep what works until you can't", "ditch it with months on the license to push an inferior, downgraded experience"?
Why couldn't they have spent that time getting data partnerships that apparently is going to solve all of their problems?
Why couldn't they have spent that time getting data partnerships that apparently is going to solve all of their problems?
I would imagine they were working from a standpoint of "this is the last major launch before the license is up.". Could you imagine if the google maps app was shut down? people would go bannanas.
>>Why couldn't they have spent that time getting data partnerships that apparently is going to solve all of their problems?
I would imagine they have been spending years on this already. Google has just been spending nearly a decade doing the same thing. When you are both world class development companies, a several year lead is insurmountable for a very long time.
>>Why couldn't they have spent that time getting data partnerships that apparently is going to solve all of their problems?
I would imagine they have been spending years on this already. Google has just been spending nearly a decade doing the same thing. When you are both world class development companies, a several year lead is insurmountable for a very long time.
So, now Apple, Godly Apple, is rushing incomplete, knowingly broken products out just to fit with their hardware release schedule?
I don't have a dog in the race, but maybe I'm realizing why Scott was fired.
I don't have a dog in the race, but maybe I'm realizing why Scott was fired.
No, iOS6 users who want google maps have been using the google maps website. It actually works incredibly well.
Have iOS6 users been waiting this long to get GMaps back??
Yes. Very much so. I was frustrated with the app for a few weeks, then one day driving back from out of state I ran into a closed section of interstate. After half an hour of fighting the app in a convenience store parking lot, I gave up and went inside to buy a road atlas.
I could really rely on google maps to give me good directions and actually show me all the roads sensibly. With my android phone, when I needed to deviate from the calculated route I'd just let my sense of direction lead me around for 15 minutes then look back at my phone, thats how much I trusted it.
Yes. Very much so. I was frustrated with the app for a few weeks, then one day driving back from out of state I ran into a closed section of interstate. After half an hour of fighting the app in a convenience store parking lot, I gave up and went inside to buy a road atlas.
I could really rely on google maps to give me good directions and actually show me all the roads sensibly. With my android phone, when I needed to deviate from the calculated route I'd just let my sense of direction lead me around for 15 minutes then look back at my phone, thats how much I trusted it.
Does maps.google.com not work on iOS 6?
The only people complaining about Google Maps seem to be non-iOS users.
Because the mobile version has been available and was about 80% as good as the app. Which really showed just how lacking the original maps was.
Because the mobile version has been available and was about 80% as good as the app. Which really showed just how lacking the original maps was.
I use my 3rd gen ipad all the time, in the bay area, and the Apple maps suck. Sorry but they do. My wife's iPad, being Gen 1, has been spared being upgraded to IOS6 and so we look up map things on hers. On numerous occasions we've compared what the 'old' Maps app brought up and what the 'current' Map app brought up and merely shook our head.
I am surprised that Google would even consider putting their maps back on iOS at this point given the publicity but they have never been a very scrutable organization.
I am surprised that Google would even consider putting their maps back on iOS at this point given the publicity but they have never been a very scrutable organization.
The actual "complaining" may be attributed to a few people (non-iOS or not), but from its reliability alone, Apple's iOS6 Maps is certainly not my first choice when I need directions to a new location that I have little familiarity with. An early usage of iOS6 Maps led me to the wrong address (a confusion of North/South streets) and it's not like I live in a particularly exotic region (South Bay/Los Angeles). I'll give it another chance when iOS7 Maps is out.
And the Mildura Police force.
Honestly -- the directions are fine. Turn by Turn seems useful (only had it a short while in AU).
The key issue for me is crappy information display. Most of the time -- major roads aren't shown while zoomed out. So If I want to glance at the maps to try an alternate route -- I can't.
Honestly -- the directions are fine. Turn by Turn seems useful (only had it a short while in AU).
The key issue for me is crappy information display. Most of the time -- major roads aren't shown while zoomed out. So If I want to glance at the maps to try an alternate route -- I can't.
Really? I know to expect this from you, but you're really going to make this absolute statement: "The only people complaining about Google Maps seem to be non-iOS users." and stand by it? Besides, somehow I have no doubt that you're a fan of native apps and would happily espouse how important they are.
It's not an absolute statement. I said SEEM to be.
Because the fact is that the mobile site IS about 80% as good as the native app. Especially given the native app has poor caching and no offline capability.
Because the fact is that the mobile site IS about 80% as good as the native app. Especially given the native app has poor caching and no offline capability.
I wonder how many developers will do that block of code that opens web links in Chrome if its available on your phone.
Do you mean like a gmaps:// type URL protocol? I guess it depends on how many apps bump out to Maps anyway, I haven't seen any personally.
Normally maps are integrated into the app (which means at this point supporting IOS6 means integrating Apple Maps)
Normally maps are integrated into the app (which means at this point supporting IOS6 means integrating Apple Maps)
Maps SDK was released as well: http://googlegeodevelopers.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-new-way-to...
Ah cool, I figured this would be coming with the new app.
The Facebook and Eventbrite apps both allow launching the msps app.
Now that it s out,it will be interesting to have some side to side comparison of data accuracy and additionally on Data usage between the 2 apps.
The previous iOS 5 apps was using image tiling but these new app seems to use the vector based one, so in a way similar to what Apple maps s doing.
Yeah suure, "Google to release Maps tonight".
More like: "Apple to approve Maps tonight".
Google submitted Maps to Apple months ago (although Eric Schmidt remained voluntarily ambiguous and avoided to say it explicitly): http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/25/eric-schmidt-on-google-maps-on... After firing the iOS Maps manager (Rich Williamson), Apple decided to take the only sensible approach of finally pushing a button to let Google Maps in the app store, as a short-term stop-gap solution to end their endusers' frustration.
Google submitted Maps to Apple months ago (although Eric Schmidt remained voluntarily ambiguous and avoided to say it explicitly): http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/25/eric-schmidt-on-google-maps-on... After firing the iOS Maps manager (Rich Williamson), Apple decided to take the only sensible approach of finally pushing a button to let Google Maps in the app store, as a short-term stop-gap solution to end their endusers' frustration.
[deleted]
More like "Clock to tick forward to Google decided date to release already Apple approved Maps".
Still no bike maps on iPhone.