Apple used flyover because the were to lazy for street view and I don't remember street view working for navigation.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What is the Point of 3D Flyover in Apple Maps?
- Thread starter SomeDudeAsking
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually think Flyover is rather handy for navigation and, eventually, the Flyover style 3D map will become far more useful than street lecel photographs. This is because the level of detail will increase to the point that you'll be able to zoom in really close and see what a location looks like from street level but you'll see that in context rather than as a static picture.
In fact, you can already get pretty close to that now. I'm in London and if I get Flyover up for someplace like St. Paul's Cathedral I can make out a lot of detail in the surroudning streets and I could easily pinpoint where I was standing if I were there.
Now, if you were to add to that the ability to pull in geotagged pictures - maybe those taken by iOS users... well, then things start to get very interesting indeed.
Basically what I'm saying is don't underestimate how useful something like Flyover can be. It isn't Streetview but, in some ways, it's better.
In fact, you can already get pretty close to that now. I'm in London and if I get Flyover up for someplace like St. Paul's Cathedral I can make out a lot of detail in the surroudning streets and I could easily pinpoint where I was standing if I were there.
Now, if you were to add to that the ability to pull in geotagged pictures - maybe those taken by iOS users... well, then things start to get very interesting indeed.
Basically what I'm saying is don't underestimate how useful something like Flyover can be. It isn't Streetview but, in some ways, it's better.
Street view is great if you want to see one photo of a storefront. Flyover is much more efficient at giving you an impression of the entire area you are going to. Moving around the map in flyover is much much easier as well, and even fun, while it is clicky frustrating in street view.
Flyover is the future, it can do what street view can, in places street view cars can't go, and with natural navigation around the map.
The storefront photo thing is just a question of texture resolution.
Flyover is the future, it can do what street view can, in places street view cars can't go, and with natural navigation around the map.
The storefront photo thing is just a question of texture resolution.
Nah.
First there is no possibility to add 3D for as many places as Google covers with streetview.
Second, no, it doesn't really replace streetview at least not for a long time. Photos are completely different than 3D models and the way you go step by step is just different.
I think both are nice but don't have to much practical use.
In theory, myabe a few, but with Google covering the sea, the wild and even the inside of shops, it will not happen.
The inside of shops? Are people really that ridiculous that they need to see the inside of shops on a computer?
And the wild. Why can't Apple map that in Flyover?
Don't ask me, I don't think anybody really needs it. But it is always a nice news item for google.
I think Apple will continue to model large cities of interest for the most people. It will take years to cover even smaller towns, I don't think they will cover the whole earth in the next years or even decades.
Maps is a Google core business, but Flyover is just a nice extra Apple gives us. They should (and probably will) enhance the navigation experience first, maybe the POI coverage.
Oh, you think I think Apple can't map the wild? Sure they can, but what should they model there? The trees? Yeah, Google does photograph the trees, the snow, all the stuff that is subject to (fast) change - don't know if they update it regularely.
Ever heard of Google Earth?
Apple just incorporated Earth and Maps into one app. I don't think they ever said it was a specific replacement to StreetView, just the broader idea of Google's two most popular navigation products. You know, two birds with one stone.
Apple just incorporated Earth and Maps into one app. I don't think they ever said it was a specific replacement to StreetView, just the broader idea of Google's two most popular navigation products. You know, two birds with one stone.
It is not much different from street view. I don't see the point of either of them. It's just storage of a bunch of needless information. If you can't figure out where you are going with a map you don't need to know.
Honestly turn-by-turn directions are useful, but a map on a phone is no better than the paper maps that most of us managed to live with for many years. Unfortunately the ability to do stuff frequently solves problems that never existed.
Honestly turn-by-turn directions are useful, but a map on a phone is no better than the paper maps that most of us managed to live with for many years. Unfortunately the ability to do stuff frequently solves problems that never existed.
No offense, but I'm guessing you're pretty old if you're going to compare the convenience of phone maps with paper maps. And if you actually believe that finding directions, train schedules or getting walking info is a problem that never existed then "You're using Maps wrong".
In Chicago I'm used to every building/shop being properly numbered, but in SoCal them many times I'd go for blocks without spotting a single number on a location. And that's where Street view is incredibly useful. I could just switch to Street View mode and see the actual restaurant is the red one that comes right after the McDonalds.
While I mostly agree that is true for many inventions like the mobile phone itself - or the wheel, or electricity
Actually I find it OK if stuff is improved and things get more comfortable, just the *****torm it caused and the inability of some people to adapt is really unnerving.
This kind of thinking is EXACTLY why 3D is getting such a bad reputation.
3D flyover is a standalone feature and is not meant to be compensation for missing transit or street view data. Yet we always have these people who act as if its supposed to be one or the other, but NOT all?
Google will benefit from increasing their use of 3D into their Maps and Apple would benefit from integrating walking/transit directions and street view. So to pit 3D vs Streetview is just silly because (in time) BOTH should be available on maps.
I dont think Apple will start sending "Apple Roadvision cars" around the world to take pictures. Maps is not that huge part of their business as it is for Google.
It's not lazier, it's just more practical. Instead of driving around the world for 5 years only to find it's all out of date by the time you've finished.
Actually, on the point about transit data, I rather like the way Apple is doing this. There are a bunch of really great transit apps which offer a range of added value. One that I use is called City Mapper; it not only shows you the various options (bus, train, tube, walk) and how long they take but also how much they cost. They even throw in off the wall ones like Horse and Carriage! That's just for fun really. But this option opens the door for various other, more specialised transit apps.
For example, you could build a transit app that was aimed at people in wheelchairs or blind people that would offer the best routes for those specific users. I could also see someone producing a transit app that took into account safety - maybe one that suggested the route with the least crime or with the best lighting and CCTV coverage. Another option would be an app that could offer transit directions that take in the best views for tourists - I believe there's already one that turns tram journies into guided tours.
The Apple Maps solution for transit is, to my mind, a good solution - better than the Google Maps solution.
Flyover DOES provide an interesting perspective on a city. And it makes a cool presentation at one of Apple's dog & pony shows..
But it's mainly eye candy.
And if the choice was between having an accurate, fully functional Map App or Flyover, there probably aren't many rational people who would choose Flyover.
As for Google's Street View, I DO find it helpful when I'm looking for an address at a building I've never seen before- you know, it's got a yellow awning or something like that.
For me at least, it has a more practical application in life than Flyover simply because as hard as I have tried, I haven't been able to get my Superman Cape to actually make me fly through any of the cities where Flyover works...
But it's mainly eye candy.
And if the choice was between having an accurate, fully functional Map App or Flyover, there probably aren't many rational people who would choose Flyover.
As for Google's Street View, I DO find it helpful when I'm looking for an address at a building I've never seen before- you know, it's got a yellow awning or something like that.
For me at least, it has a more practical application in life than Flyover simply because as hard as I have tried, I haven't been able to get my Superman Cape to actually make me fly through any of the cities where Flyover works...
Exactly right...Google's only advantage is the integration with the map, but with Apple,it is literally one extra click (after the third party app of preference is downloaded). And really, how long do you think it will be before they allow your most common third party apps to be integrated completely by simply hitting the transit button in the Maps screen?
It's a gimmick. It's human nature to like silly stuff. Fulfills a certain emptiness people have in their lives. Sort of like flowers.
Another reason for Flyover, and perhaps more importantly, is that Apple Map's satellite images are otherwise horrible. Go look at St Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna or the Astronomical Clock in Prague and try to tell me some sort of better imaging is not needed.
Another reason for Flyover, and perhaps more importantly, is that Apple Map's satellite images are otherwise horrible. Go look at St Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna or the Astronomical Clock in Prague and try to tell me some sort of better imaging is not needed.
Last edited:
Mapping the inside of buildings is great for large places - an airport, a station, a mall or a supermarket. When Google launched their inside mapping options they used the "straight to gate" example and hinted that this could even be used when finding the perfect path inside your supermarket (based on your shopping list). Need it or not is a completely different thing - it looked like we got along fine without this before, but then again... it's neat.
IMHO this is what they should do - expand 3D in the "wild" instead of cities. This would be much more useful if you could take a virtual trip over Grand Canyon, the Serengeti or the Himalayas - the usefulness in cities is very limited and the wow effect wears off after seeing the Empire State Building for the fifth time... For navigation it's not even useful at all.
----------
Problem there is that it will be implemented differently (for better or worse) and you will have an inconsistent experience. The idea of having transit information is not to have a great app with "out-of-this-world" planning features, it's to get the information as fast and as seamless as possible - if I go to this stop now, when and to where is the next bus/train - nothing else. It's for immediate navigation.
Transit information is not the same as a full blown app with travel planning and the works - you would still have those for the areas you need to.
What do you want to have modeled out there? Single stones? Trees? Maybe they will detail the textures and landscape more for sites like Grand Canyon or model places like Macchu Pichu, but do they really need to top a specialized app like Google earth in a maps app?
Ugh. if true, That's the most depressing answer I've ever seen.
iOS is going to have a billion users out there and if "Maps isn't as big a deal to Apple as it is to Google" is their attitude then they've essentially taken off a product that intends to be "the best" and replaced it with one that aims to be "good enough".
I guess this is why the courts ruled against MS forcing their own inferior programs and not giving competitors a fighting chance.
The original C3 demo was exactly this - so yes... single stones also. It's a great tool to get around places from an angle you don't have a chance seeing in real life. People use Google Earth to "visit" those places from above - the 3D feature is a Google Earth Killer more than a Maps enhancement, Apple just chose to put it Maps for convenience...
3D is a way for Apple to differentiate their product from Google's. While it doesn't compete head to head with street view or offer as much as value, its aerial imaging approach let's Apple make faster progress in this area rather that trying to catch up to Google's lead in other areas. When faced with an impossible challenge sometimes it better to try and change the game, at least from a marketing perspective.
Does it help with navigation? no. Is it useful to scout out a city? possibly. Is it a cool feature to play with, particularly on an iPad? yes.
Could it grow into something better and more useful? This remains to be seen, but remember Apple only acquired this technology less than a year ago, and at the time C3 was working on, wait for it..... street views and interior views.https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/07/c3-technologies-3d-maps-also-offer-street-views-and-interior-views/
What we're seeing is Apple's first step, albeit a pretty shakey one. How far they take it remains to be seen
Does it help with navigation? no. Is it useful to scout out a city? possibly. Is it a cool feature to play with, particularly on an iPad? yes.
Could it grow into something better and more useful? This remains to be seen, but remember Apple only acquired this technology less than a year ago, and at the time C3 was working on, wait for it..... street views and interior views.https://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/07/c3-technologies-3d-maps-also-offer-street-views-and-interior-views/
What we're seeing is Apple's first step, albeit a pretty shakey one. How far they take it remains to be seen