Get the Fainting Chair(daringfireball.net)
daringfireball.net
Get the Fainting Chair
http://daringfireball.net/2012/09/get_the_fainting_chair
15 comments
This article has nothing to do with "grading" Apple maps.
But, OK, everyone! Turn off your brains! It's a Gruber article; all we're going to talk about is Gruber!
But, OK, everyone! Turn off your brains! It's a Gruber article; all we're going to talk about is Gruber!
No, but if it had been a competitors product it would have been graded, and harshly. But instead it's an Apple product that's clearly a bit rubbish so we get some meandering drivel about how they were forced to do this for the greater good and Google is smart and evil but also incompetent and ignorant, and Apple is noble, pure and selfless for foisting half-baked maps on its users. Because a phone constantly reporting your position back to Apple so it can build maps and sell phones is so much less creepy than doing so to help Google build maps and sell ads.
The point you're making has nothing to do with the article. The article isn't "meandering drivel"; it's a summary of actual reporting on what led Apple to make the decision it did.
Oh come on, who's turned off their brain now? His job is writing apologia for Apple. Apple messed up. It's his job to spin it to suit his readership's preconcieved ideas (and then sell ads to them).
None of this has anything to do with the article either.
Here is a hint: you can read this entire article, believe everything Gruber says, and still believe Maps is a debacle.
Here is a hint: you can read this entire article, believe everything Gruber says, and still believe Maps is a debacle.
[deleted]
That analysis sounds like nonsense.
His options #1 and #3 are a false and (and misleading) dichotomy. (#1 being continue as is, and #3 being cut the cord)
Of course apple wants to ship its own mapping stuff once it can. But there's no reason it can't continue as-is until their own stuff is done.
So Gruber's claiming some kind obviousness here which is based entirely on the fiction that there was no middle ground. Based on his analysis of decisions made by people he can't even name and certainly doesn't know, he so confident in this that he insinuates that Google (and of course Apple) would have come to the same conclusion, thus that Google is lying about being suprised.
I think that's reading waaaayy to much into all this. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Of course google expected apple to do this at some point. The surprising part is that they did it so early, when their own stuff is hardly done, when the alternative (wait a little longer) has so few apparent downsides.
His options #1 and #3 are a false and (and misleading) dichotomy. (#1 being continue as is, and #3 being cut the cord)
Of course apple wants to ship its own mapping stuff once it can. But there's no reason it can't continue as-is until their own stuff is done.
So Gruber's claiming some kind obviousness here which is based entirely on the fiction that there was no middle ground. Based on his analysis of decisions made by people he can't even name and certainly doesn't know, he so confident in this that he insinuates that Google (and of course Apple) would have come to the same conclusion, thus that Google is lying about being suprised.
I think that's reading waaaayy to much into all this. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Of course google expected apple to do this at some point. The surprising part is that they did it so early, when their own stuff is hardly done, when the alternative (wait a little longer) has so few apparent downsides.
I find it a little baffling the amount of animus Apple's mapping has generated on HN. The alternative to Apple doing their own mapping was to continue relying on Google. How is it not a great thing that Apple is competing with them on this? Don't we need more well capitalized global mapping infrastructure?
I find the backlash totally fine, but I am incredibly bothered by the rational shortcuts people take to bash Apple based solely on idle speculation and misinterpretation of facts.
"They could just have done so and so", as if we are privy to any inside information.
I really hate it when people choose to make up arguments with no solid ground when there are plenty of criticisms to be made.
"They could just have done so and so", as if we are privy to any inside information.
I really hate it when people choose to make up arguments with no solid ground when there are plenty of criticisms to be made.
I have only one rule regarding my technology purchases: it has to work. Apple maps don't, so no iPhone for me. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by animus.
Not at all! If Apple's maps don't work for you, that strikes me as a very good reason not to buy an iPhone. I might even go so far as to suggest that "reasons not to buy an iPhone" are a good thing; the whole market could use more competition.
It's the "Apple has made a terrible irresponsible mistake" stuff that confuses me.
Incidentally, where are you that Apple's maps don't work for you? I'm in Chicago and they work better for me than the old one did.
It's the "Apple has made a terrible irresponsible mistake" stuff that confuses me.
Incidentally, where are you that Apple's maps don't work for you? I'm in Chicago and they work better for me than the old one did.
I recently moved from Chicago to Seattle, but I rarely like to drive in Seattle so transit directions are essential for me.
Edit: What were your problems with Google maps in Chicago? I remember it was kind of stupid sometimes (e.g., it would tell me to take the pink line 3 blocks and transfer instead of just walking three blocks and getting on the red line), but I don't remember them being inaccurate.
Edit: What were your problems with Google maps in Chicago? I remember it was kind of stupid sometimes (e.g., it would tell me to take the pink line 3 blocks and transfer instead of just walking three blocks and getting on the red line), but I don't remember them being inaccurate.
You don't think maybe not baking in transit was a good move? Allows space for companies to build apps with transit as a real focus?
That depends. First, if they had worked with a company prior to release that makes some sense, however I really need access now, not in 6 months.
In addition, I often feel that public transit and walking directions go hand-in-hand. I would be willing to see someone try to separate them, but I'm skeptical of the user experience.
In addition, I often feel that public transit and walking directions go hand-in-hand. I would be willing to see someone try to separate them, but I'm skeptical of the user experience.
Agreed. This is an exciting area to watch battles in innovation over the years. Note how Amazon also recently announced their own mapping API (using Nokia's or UpNext's mapping data, I think). http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4532099
All of the big boys are angling to be in the game (don't forget Bing maps).
I may keep a folded paper map handy whilst traveling abroad, however, for the foreseeable future.
All of the big boys are angling to be in the game (don't forget Bing maps).
I may keep a folded paper map handy whilst traveling abroad, however, for the foreseeable future.
Quote from Linus.
> THE USER DOESN'T CARE.
Source: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638477#c129
> THE USER DOESN'T CARE.
Source: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638477#c129
Quote from me.
> NOT MY POINT.
Source: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4577307
> NOT MY POINT.
Source: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4577307
I don't think anyone minds that Apple is competing. I've been fiercely critical of the new iOS 6 maps, and I welcome competition. I can't speak for others, but what bothers me is not that Apple released a different mapping solution, but that the new map app is just so unbelievably terrible for many people [1]. Even with the third-party add-ons, you still can't use Apple maps to plan an inter-city itinerary, or one that crosses the "territory" of multiple transit agencies. In some American cities, that means you can't use iOS 6 maps to plan a trip across town. These are things that did work in iOS 5.
I completely understand how it makes business sense for Apple to develop it's own mapping product, but that doesn't mean that they have to release software that is missing huge chunks of functionality. There seems to be this false dichotomy that Apple had two options: "release a product that is nowhere near ready to ship," and "rely on Google forever." There is a third option, which is "develop maps secretly, do the first two 90%'s of the work, then drop Google maps." Many on HN have argued that maps can't improve until they are used. That is doubtlessly true for some aspects: POIs, especially businesses, aren't going to be added until Apple maps gain mind-share, and there will be errors in the data that Apple bought until someone bothers to tell Apple to correct it. I can forgive Apple for that. But those are the things belong to the third 90% of the work.
If anything, this piece at Daring Fireball just reinforces the idea that Apple has a problem somewhere in the chain of command. It really seems like there's nothing that would have prevented Apple from waiting another 6 to 12 months to announce it's mapping product, except that someone drastically underestimated how difficult it would be to compete with Google. Frankly, I think that's why iOS 6 doesn't have transit directions--the only thing you can do with a late product is drop features or push back the ship date.[2]
I really do welcome all the things that Apple is trying to do maps in iOS 6, and I think they will have a good product in a year's time (or maybe two). That does not, however, mean that I want or will accept broken maps on my phone in the interim.
[1] Apparently this is everyone in Japan, a dude in Portugal, and many people who use public transit to get around in big American cities. For some, the addition of turn-by-turn is a bigger gain than the loss of public transit and street-view.
[2] This is also why I can't see the third-party transit thing as a viable solution. The end-game is that Apple will bring transit in-house the same way they did with the rest of maps. Actually, maybe it's a brilliant strategy on Apple's part to pick really good team to do transit directions. Embark seems to be doing a good job, but they seem to be focusing on just a few transit systems in big cities, with no inter-city transit. Hopefully Apple will acquire them and provide the resources to have really complete coverage.
I completely understand how it makes business sense for Apple to develop it's own mapping product, but that doesn't mean that they have to release software that is missing huge chunks of functionality. There seems to be this false dichotomy that Apple had two options: "release a product that is nowhere near ready to ship," and "rely on Google forever." There is a third option, which is "develop maps secretly, do the first two 90%'s of the work, then drop Google maps." Many on HN have argued that maps can't improve until they are used. That is doubtlessly true for some aspects: POIs, especially businesses, aren't going to be added until Apple maps gain mind-share, and there will be errors in the data that Apple bought until someone bothers to tell Apple to correct it. I can forgive Apple for that. But those are the things belong to the third 90% of the work.
If anything, this piece at Daring Fireball just reinforces the idea that Apple has a problem somewhere in the chain of command. It really seems like there's nothing that would have prevented Apple from waiting another 6 to 12 months to announce it's mapping product, except that someone drastically underestimated how difficult it would be to compete with Google. Frankly, I think that's why iOS 6 doesn't have transit directions--the only thing you can do with a late product is drop features or push back the ship date.[2]
I really do welcome all the things that Apple is trying to do maps in iOS 6, and I think they will have a good product in a year's time (or maybe two). That does not, however, mean that I want or will accept broken maps on my phone in the interim.
[1] Apparently this is everyone in Japan, a dude in Portugal, and many people who use public transit to get around in big American cities. For some, the addition of turn-by-turn is a bigger gain than the loss of public transit and street-view.
[2] This is also why I can't see the third-party transit thing as a viable solution. The end-game is that Apple will bring transit in-house the same way they did with the rest of maps. Actually, maybe it's a brilliant strategy on Apple's part to pick really good team to do transit directions. Embark seems to be doing a good job, but they seem to be focusing on just a few transit systems in big cities, with no inter-city transit. Hopefully Apple will acquire them and provide the resources to have really complete coverage.
Sure, it's a good long-term strategy, but the replacement was immensely premature. See my comment further down the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4577215 .
One way to look at this: Apple is willing to pay, in eroded market share during the transition, for earlier control of their own mapping infrastructure.
Again: isn't that a good thing?
Again: isn't that a good thing?
It's certainly a daring thing. I suspect that you're right and that it won't be such a huge issue in a year or so.
I do wonder if this is an opportunity for Microsoft to sell a complete platform experience while Apple is taking a breather.
Disclaimer: I just recently started working for MSFT in a position not at all related to Windows Phone. I also don't own a Windows Phone.
I do wonder if this is an opportunity for Microsoft to sell a complete platform experience while Apple is taking a breather.
Disclaimer: I just recently started working for MSFT in a position not at all related to Windows Phone. I also don't own a Windows Phone.
I have a hard time believing Apple didn't see this coming. This isn't like Siri staggering under its load; the gaps in Apple's data, and moreover in the Maps feature set, are plainly obvious.
Apple knew this was going to happen, and did it anyways. It is therefore part of a strategy.
Apple knew this was going to happen, and did it anyways. It is therefore part of a strategy.
Yes, that might well be a good move for Apple. We're talking "market share" and "control of infrastructure" and all that. That makes sense.
One problem, though: It sucks that, in order to make a move that makes economic sense, you have to break stuff for your users. And not just break. REALLY break.
Gruber talks about the options Apple had, and one is "wait one more year having less features than their competitors". Well, that sounds exactly like what Apple would do in the past, in order to have a better user experience. You know, the infamous "customers don't want this or that" that Jobs would always say when they didn't have something ready.
One problem, though: It sucks that, in order to make a move that makes economic sense, you have to break stuff for your users. And not just break. REALLY break.
Gruber talks about the options Apple had, and one is "wait one more year having less features than their competitors". Well, that sounds exactly like what Apple would do in the past, in order to have a better user experience. You know, the infamous "customers don't want this or that" that Jobs would always say when they didn't have something ready.
Please, this guy. He defends Apple as if it were a deity. I don't think I've ever seen a truly substantial criticism of Apple come out of him. Do we really believe that Apple is infallible?
It makes sense for Apple to seek liberation from Google's chokehold on Maps, and to make plans to deploy this when it was ready. So, out of his extremely malformed recounting of Apple's available options, choice #3 is the best in the long term, but it's not the best choice right now, when Apple's in-house version is leading people down dead-ends into wooded areas when they're almost out of gas (http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/31930446388/neithe...) and doing similarly perilous things all the time. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone.
iPhone would continue to thrive even with less featureful maps support. The addition of Latitude would not be an invasion of privacy as Gruber suggests, because it's off by default and in fact when I try to enable Latitude (on road trips, so family can track progress) I typically have a hard time finding it. While neither option 1 nor option 2 is ideal for Apple, both were plausible, reasonable solutions until their in-house maps solution was ready. This, again, should be obvious.
It is immensely irresponsible to rip out something as critical and relied upon, not just for convenience but for safety, as Maps and replace it with a half-baked, disastrously incomplete lookalike. I totally sympathize with Apple wanting out of Google's grip, but we need to be serious here. They released far, far too early, and their draconian and self-serving policies for App Store inclusion have left customers (in some cases literally) stranded.
Apple did a bad thing with this maps release. I would call Google right up and strike a deal to push an OTA update that put the old maps back right away if I were them.
It makes sense for Apple to seek liberation from Google's chokehold on Maps, and to make plans to deploy this when it was ready. So, out of his extremely malformed recounting of Apple's available options, choice #3 is the best in the long term, but it's not the best choice right now, when Apple's in-house version is leading people down dead-ends into wooded areas when they're almost out of gas (http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/31930446388/neithe...) and doing similarly perilous things all the time. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone.
iPhone would continue to thrive even with less featureful maps support. The addition of Latitude would not be an invasion of privacy as Gruber suggests, because it's off by default and in fact when I try to enable Latitude (on road trips, so family can track progress) I typically have a hard time finding it. While neither option 1 nor option 2 is ideal for Apple, both were plausible, reasonable solutions until their in-house maps solution was ready. This, again, should be obvious.
It is immensely irresponsible to rip out something as critical and relied upon, not just for convenience but for safety, as Maps and replace it with a half-baked, disastrously incomplete lookalike. I totally sympathize with Apple wanting out of Google's grip, but we need to be serious here. They released far, far too early, and their draconian and self-serving policies for App Store inclusion have left customers (in some cases literally) stranded.
Apple did a bad thing with this maps release. I would call Google right up and strike a deal to push an OTA update that put the old maps back right away if I were them.
> Please, this guy.
> He defends Apple as if it were a deity.
> I don't think I've ever seen a truly substantial
> criticism of Apple come out of him.
Do we really believe that Apple is infallible?
No.
>> He defends Apple as if it were a deity.
>No, he does not.
He sure seems like he's doing it to me. This whole post is about how Apple Maps aren't really what they seem, and it's OK that Apple did this because what else was Apple supposed to do? Just let Google have something they want? Make a compromise when ideal options aren't tenable? Ha! The Great and Powerful Apple could never stoop to such levels, reserved for mere-mortal companies. The Great and Powerful Apple operates on a different plane, above reproach, incomprehensible to normal minds. While we may never fully understand The Great and Powerful Apple until the next life, we must trust that they have our best interest at heart, and always do the best thing, like replace functional mapping software with a ridiculously under-prepared conflagration that would have people drive off cliffs. This may seem foolish to us, but the wisdom of The Great and Powerful Apple sometimes appears as foolishness to men.
>No, he does not.
He sure seems like he's doing it to me. This whole post is about how Apple Maps aren't really what they seem, and it's OK that Apple did this because what else was Apple supposed to do? Just let Google have something they want? Make a compromise when ideal options aren't tenable? Ha! The Great and Powerful Apple could never stoop to such levels, reserved for mere-mortal companies. The Great and Powerful Apple operates on a different plane, above reproach, incomprehensible to normal minds. While we may never fully understand The Great and Powerful Apple until the next life, we must trust that they have our best interest at heart, and always do the best thing, like replace functional mapping software with a ridiculously under-prepared conflagration that would have people drive off cliffs. This may seem foolish to us, but the wisdom of The Great and Powerful Apple sometimes appears as foolishness to men.
Strange. The way I read his article was "Apple was between a rock and a hard place. They chose the hard place because that made more sense for them". He doesn't praise Maps. He describes why he thinks Apple chose to make a less than perfect Maps app, i.e., "made a compromise when ideal options weren't tenable".
I feel like I'm one of the few people that really likes the new mapping in iOS6. Granted I don't live on a college campus nor do I travel to rural areas often. The 9 or 10 times I've used the navigation so far it's been flawless.
I used to have a Droid Incredible and the navigation in iOS6 is far better in my opinion. The GPS seems to be a bit more accurate and the map UI just seems cleaner as well.
I used to have a Droid Incredible and the navigation in iOS6 is far better in my opinion. The GPS seems to be a bit more accurate and the map UI just seems cleaner as well.
You're not alone. It has been working well for me, too. But maybe Omaha is well covered or I'm not using it enough.
I have been wondering, though, whether there has been any effort to quantify exactly how bad iOS 6 Maps really are.
I mean: if this topic were about anything else, HN denizens would be quick to lecture us about how all the complaints are coming from a self-selected sample, not a random one, and how the examples are cherry-picked - not necessarily representative, and how the plural of anecdote is not data.
While there are clearly a lot of errors (and some of them very funny) the world is a very, very big place.
So I wonder how bad is "bad", really? What unit(s) of measurement would one use to quantify it? I imagine you would need a different unit of measurement for each kind of error: one for the melted bridge, one for not finding the Starbucks down the street, one for having an airport in the middle of a field...
I have been wondering, though, whether there has been any effort to quantify exactly how bad iOS 6 Maps really are.
I mean: if this topic were about anything else, HN denizens would be quick to lecture us about how all the complaints are coming from a self-selected sample, not a random one, and how the examples are cherry-picked - not necessarily representative, and how the plural of anecdote is not data.
While there are clearly a lot of errors (and some of them very funny) the world is a very, very big place.
So I wonder how bad is "bad", really? What unit(s) of measurement would one use to quantify it? I imagine you would need a different unit of measurement for each kind of error: one for the melted bridge, one for not finding the Starbucks down the street, one for having an airport in the middle of a field...
Have you tried a recent version of Google Maps on Android? It has improved a lot over the last couple of years.
Turn-by-turn is not so great in Germany. Traffic info sucks. Both of those are much better in Apple's new maps (especially the traffic info, extremely current and detailed).
Sure, that's limited, but it isn't all bad.
Sure, that's limited, but it isn't all bad.
As will Apple Maps in a few years. Good to have some decent alternatives out there. I know, people will argue with me that Apple is the evil one here...
Hmm, mature, tested, and working platform now, or broken and weak platform which may be better "in a few years".
Difficult decision.
Difficult decision.
It's odd to me that Google was allowed to go through growing pains, but another company attempting to do the same be criticized for it. Seriously - would you expect Google to make a different decision if the roles were reversed?
Re: your reply below. Well, that I believe. It had better be since it's had those years to perfect itself. And I can understand why people would be unhappy with the switch away from Google Maps on iOS - if it were as good as that on Android. Which is wasn't, and sounds like would have been an ordeal to make it so. Google didn't make the app, Apple did. Why put the effort into perfecting the Google Maps app, when they could put that same (more obviously) effort into perfecting their own?
Re: your reply below. Well, that I believe. It had better be since it's had those years to perfect itself. And I can understand why people would be unhappy with the switch away from Google Maps on iOS - if it were as good as that on Android. Which is wasn't, and sounds like would have been an ordeal to make it so. Google didn't make the app, Apple did. Why put the effort into perfecting the Google Maps app, when they could put that same (more obviously) effort into perfecting their own?
Google Maps was not rolled out to a hundred million preexisting devices in an abysmal state to replace a working solution, and for its entire existence has competed in a landscape where it has had major advantages over competitors, either on the basis of quality, or on the basis of price.
If I crafted a questionable replica of Windows 3.11 and went out and installed it on a hundred million computers that had been running Windows 7, would you defend me because Microsoft had to go through growing pains, too?
"Apple Maps" is late to the party, and forgot its clothes. Why be surprised at the response?
If I crafted a questionable replica of Windows 3.11 and went out and installed it on a hundred million computers that had been running Windows 7, would you defend me because Microsoft had to go through growing pains, too?
"Apple Maps" is late to the party, and forgot its clothes. Why be surprised at the response?
You know, maps are er… location dependent. What may be mature working and tested in SF can happen not to be that polished elsewhere. Many (most?) of those declaring Apple's doom and gloom because of the new maps usually forget that there are iOS users outside the SF area and outside of US, and Apple maps there can be on par if not better.
The only countries I've heard that have better Maps in iOS6 are North Korea and those that made up the Former Yugoslavia. The UK in particular seems a mess and the US seems to be the best supported by far in terms of location data.
What one's have you heard are better? China? The one that some blogger thought Google wasn't using the better data source that Apple used, except it turned out they were and it was basically placebo?
What one's have you heard are better? China? The one that some blogger thought Google wasn't using the better data source that Apple used, except it turned out they were and it was basically placebo?
I see you're talking about Android circa 2009. We're talking about Apple's new Maps app.
Very funny. Unfortunately I was talking about the Maps application, of which Android's offer is currently better in every conceivable way.
It's not better in every conceivable way. Traffic info in Germany kind of sucks from Google, it's the best you can get (TomTom's traffic info) in Apple's app. Extremely detailed, extremely current.
What use is the traffic data if the underlying map/POI data can't plot a decent route to overlay traffic info on?
Funny you should say that. Turn-by-turn (and especially the walking directions) kind of suck on Google Maps in Germany. It sends you on very weird routes. Turn-by-turn in Apple's maps app is kinda great. No weird routes and such. TomTom is pretty great in Germany. I can't speak for any other countries.
The POIs do suck and some labels are seriously out of place. Also, search sometimes tends to send you to weird places. Those are serious inexcusable issues, but the whole turn-by-turn part is pretty great and the actual maps are pretty comprehensive (at least in Germany).
The POIs do suck and some labels are seriously out of place. Also, search sometimes tends to send you to weird places. Those are serious inexcusable issues, but the whole turn-by-turn part is pretty great and the actual maps are pretty comprehensive (at least in Germany).
I last used it about a year ago. However, I think that was on Android 2.3 still.
The internet at large seems to have picked up the "Android doesn't get updates meme" and so remains unaware of that fact that even crappy low-end Android's running 2.3 (and before) get the latest updates to Google Maps and have been streets ahead of iOS Maps for a very long time.
I think the explanation goes more like this: Google took a look at the maps shipped with the beta version of iOS6 and though to themselves "There's no way that Apple can bring this up to Apple quality software in 3 months, we've got lots of time to ready our replacement". They were right about the first part, but wrong about the second.
i went searching for more info as i don't know much about all this, and found
Apple is actually responsible for building the app, which is why so few of the many advancements that have come to Google Maps on Android
at http://fury.com/2012/06/wills-and-wonts-at-WWDC-2012/
which no-one else seems to be mentioning (the implication seems to be that google made the ios app crappy on purpose, which the above seems to contradict).
Apple is actually responsible for building the app, which is why so few of the many advancements that have come to Google Maps on Android
at http://fury.com/2012/06/wills-and-wonts-at-WWDC-2012/
which no-one else seems to be mentioning (the implication seems to be that google made the ios app crappy on purpose, which the above seems to contradict).
Without knowing the details of the Apple-Google contract, it's still hard to say. It's entirely possible that Google forbade use of directions for turn-by-turn navigation in it.
That is what the WSJ reported.
I believe when the original contract was put in place, Google was licensing their street data from one of the GPS incumbents with a "no turn by turn" restriction. It was only later that Google made their own street data and could offer turn by turn. In that light, it makes sense that Apple's contract had the restriction.
Oh Gruber, all that analysis and your little footnote strikes me as the most likely explanation.
"More Google branding, less user privacy."
I highly doubt user privacy was one of the reasons Apple chose this path. Does anyone have any corroborating evidence for this claim? I can imagine they did not want to share user data in order to retain a competitive advantage but I have trouble believing it was in the interest of preserving user privacy.
I highly doubt user privacy was one of the reasons Apple chose this path. Does anyone have any corroborating evidence for this claim? I can imagine they did not want to share user data in order to retain a competitive advantage but I have trouble believing it was in the interest of preserving user privacy.
Imagine an alternate reality where Apple released the Map program with google-grade road and POI[1] data, perhaps even pictures of Scotland that show something other than clouds[2]…
Wouldn't every map app maker cry foul and whine (perhaps with the mouths of lawyers) about Apple using their incumbent (pronounced "monopoly" by lawyers) position to put them out of business?
By launching with sad POI data[3] they enter the map market as the underdog, or at least that cute three legged dog. Virtual immunity from an antitrust meme on the internet. In a couple months they could have a "look how great they are now" meme instead.
Remember what Coca-Cola's president, Donald Keough, said about introducing "New Coke" just to have it reviled and drive people more firmly to Coca-Cola Classic: The truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart.
EOM
[1] POI is arguably the easiest part of mapping if you have tens of millions of people to enter corrections.
[2] Clouds over Scotland is fixed by writing a couple checks to imagery companies and running your source blender program again.
[3] Without exception, the POI location failures I'm seeing are because the data is wrong in Yelp. Reporting to Apple didn't yield a quick response, reporting to Yelp got it changed in Yelp, but it is still wrong in Maps. It remains to be seen how frequently Apple will update.
Wouldn't every map app maker cry foul and whine (perhaps with the mouths of lawyers) about Apple using their incumbent (pronounced "monopoly" by lawyers) position to put them out of business?
By launching with sad POI data[3] they enter the map market as the underdog, or at least that cute three legged dog. Virtual immunity from an antitrust meme on the internet. In a couple months they could have a "look how great they are now" meme instead.
Remember what Coca-Cola's president, Donald Keough, said about introducing "New Coke" just to have it reviled and drive people more firmly to Coca-Cola Classic: The truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart.
EOM
[1] POI is arguably the easiest part of mapping if you have tens of millions of people to enter corrections.
[2] Clouds over Scotland is fixed by writing a couple checks to imagery companies and running your source blender program again.
[3] Without exception, the POI location failures I'm seeing are because the data is wrong in Yelp. Reporting to Apple didn't yield a quick response, reporting to Yelp got it changed in Yelp, but it is still wrong in Maps. It remains to be seen how frequently Apple will update.
The link to the melted bridge is pretty darn funny. I agree with his premise about the maps, Google Maps in iOS lags the Android version pretty badly. Gotta do what you gotta do I suppose...
Seems pretty good situation for Google that most of my closest friends with iPhones are decrying the loss of Google Maps due to Apple. One person I met even swore she would not upgrade to iOS 6 until GMaps is available. Google can now step in and play the hero, having netted a ton of good grass roots PR for their solution. Just because users are pissed and press is loving a story doesn't mean some company isn't benefiting from that.
There is also the possibility that Apple truly wants the full Google Maps experience on iOS. However, if they bundle it in, then they could be perceived as leaking more user data. But if Google releases the app, and users have to consciously install it, they can't blame Apple (well, they might blame Apple unfairly) for violating their privacy or the overall spirit of iOS.
> But all three of those options came with a heavy price.
Maybe for Apple Inc, but a better Google Maps app (#2) isn't a "heavy price" for the user.
Maybe for Apple Inc, but a better Google Maps app (#2) isn't a "heavy price" for the user.
My guess is you read Gruber's summary of the WSJ story but didn't take the time to read the WSJ story itself. Google refused to provide Apple with turn-by-turn. Turn-by-turn is a huge win for users.
No I didn't read the WSJ article (just tried it, but there's a paywall) but from what I understand from this article is that they were willing to add more features (incl. turn-by-turn) in exchange for more "branding" as John Gruber puts it.
No, the WSJ reported that they were not, and the quote you're taking from Gruber's article is based on that WSJ article.
Google did not have turn by turn data when the iPhone was introduced, so it's not surprising the deal did not include it.
(Android maps app had turn by turn only one year after the first Android phone was released).
Apple tried to negotiate access to it and failed, is what the WSJ reported.
It's hard to "take the time" to read a story behind a paywall when you have no desire to give money to the entity owning the wall.
Based on the publicly-available information, it's not clear that Google did any such thing. They might have refused, or Apple might not have liked their terms, or Tim Cook may have held a seance to get advice from the ghost of an angry Dijkstra, or a hundred other scenarios of varying plausibility. It's hard to say.
Based on the publicly-available information, it's not clear that Google did any such thing. They might have refused, or Apple might not have liked their terms, or Tim Cook may have held a seance to get advice from the ghost of an angry Dijkstra, or a hundred other scenarios of varying plausibility. It's hard to say.
I like this attitude that says because you can't find the source Gruber is quoting, some random counterfactual must be true.
I did not find it hard to read the WSJ article he cited. You did. That's fine. But that does give you license to invent new facts.
I did not find it hard to read the WSJ article he cited. You did. That's fine. But that does give you license to invent new facts.
> I like this attitude that says because you can't find the source Gruber is quoting, some random counterfactual must be true.
I didn't say that at all, and you don't have the excuse of not having access to the entirety of my publicly-available comment. I don't consider it implausible that Google refused, I simply have no basis for believing that over other plausible scenarios.
I didn't say that at all, and you don't have the excuse of not having access to the entirety of my publicly-available comment. I don't consider it implausible that Google refused, I simply have no basis for believing that over other plausible scenarios.
Yes, you do: the WSJ article that reported that. The one Gruber not only cited but linked to.
My point is that that article is not available to me or the public at large. You can't expect to cite secret evidence and have us just believe everything you say. You're not Dick Cheney.
I'm done replying now, since you don't seem to be getting it.
I'm done replying now, since you don't seem to be getting it.
By this logic, Taco Bell burritos aren't available to me or the public at large because they cost like 79¢. Yet somehow Taco Bell makes millions off these unavailable burritos. It's almost like you're not being reasonable here.
Just because something takes a modicum of effort to obtain doesn't mean it's "unavailable." You can either pay a modest sum for the Wall Street Journal or just go to a library and read it there. It is readily available. If you choose not to read it, you don't then get to pretend the evidence therein does not exist.
Just because something takes a modicum of effort to obtain doesn't mean it's "unavailable." You can either pay a modest sum for the Wall Street Journal or just go to a library and read it there. It is readily available. If you choose not to read it, you don't then get to pretend the evidence therein does not exist.
Reading full original sources is like a message board super power.
Don't care for what he's got to say. Not anymore. He lost me at "rotating pedestal smoothly rising from the stage floor" in his iPhone 5 post. If it wasn't obvious whose paycheck he was on before, it became pretty damn clear after that.
Assuming it was acceptable to both parties, why wasn't it possible to add turn-by-turn capability to the existing Google-powered app and ship that instead? Is this something that couldn't have been done without major changes?
The reason can be found in the negation of the first seven words of your comment.
I think this is what point #2 covered.
Google was willing to add in more functionality but only if Apple would give them an increased amount of branding. Apple didn't want to answer to Google so they decided to build their own.
Google was willing to add in more functionality but only if Apple would give them an increased amount of branding. Apple didn't want to answer to Google so they decided to build their own.
> Google was willing to add in more functionality
may have been willing and to let apple access. The application itself was never under Google control, only under Google API restrictions.
may have been willing and to let apple access. The application itself was never under Google control, only under Google API restrictions.
"I don’t understand why so many reviewers bend over backwards to grade these things on a curve. If Google or Nokia Maps had the problems and deficiencies the Apple Maps have, these same reviewers would (rightly) trash it, and declare (again, rightly) that Google had finally lost its touch.
These aren’t “beta” maps. They’re bad maps. It’s that simple. It’s true that their presentation seems closer to Google-caliber than their data, but improving the data is the hardest part of making maps like these. By the time Apple releases “a serious update or three” the entire market will have changed. The truth is, Apple has released a would-be Google Maps competitor that pales compared to Google Maps. Just say it.
The mass market doesn’t buy, and doesn’t want to buy, products based on what they might become months from now if these companies somehow dramatically improve the software. They buy products for what they are today, out of the box. Google and Nokia are Apple’s industry peers. These are the big leagues, this is The Show. They’re charging customers real money to buy these things. They should be judged by the same standards."
Of course, he wasn't actually talking about Apple maps then so he didn't try quite so hard to see it from their point of view.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/04/21/mccracken-beta-h...