What is the Point of 3D Flyover in Apple Maps?

[Kukulcan]

C3 demos are mostly what now is in maps. Some stuff has higher res and more detailed models. But doing some limited demos or using the highest possible resolution/height data for the whole world is quite a difference in effort, server space, data transfer and processing power.

----------

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.

So apple should invest a fortune and years of work with the result that people say, oh they did a copy of streetview? I would rather have them spend that money in new ideas that might result in something really helpful.

The relation of cost vs. usefulness of streetview is pretty bad IMO.

 

[1member1]

soon those 3d maps will be the normal maps you see.

 

[el3ktro]

Flyover and StreetView are VERY different. I certainly wouldn't use StreetView for car navigation but it can certainly help in preparing for trips or when you're a tad lost in urbanised areas, particularly on foot. Maps just cannot give you views at such a micro level as StreetView.

Maps is very nice eye-candy but StreetView has way more practical value.

Flyover is - in my opinion - as helpful as StreetView when you're lost in a city. I don't know how it is in your city, but in my city StreetView is VERY outdated. Maybe 80% of the shops showing in my street aren't even there anymore, so this "street level detail" is pretty useless for finding your way anyway. What I need though is streets, buildings, parks etc. that are easily recognizable and that don't change that often than shops, and for this Flyover is very useable.

 

[Kukulcan]

Flyover is - in my opinion - as helpful as StreetView when you're lost in a city. I don't know how it is in your city, but in my city StreetView is VERY outdated. Maybe 80% of the shops showing in my street aren't even there anymore, so this "street level detail" is pretty useless for finding your way anyway. What I need though is streets, buildings, parks etc. that are easily recognizable and that don't change that often than shops, and for this Flyover is very useable.

Sorry, but your ability to adapt must be very low if you can't recognize Google streetview images, just because a certain shop is no longer.

 

[Troneas]

it may save you valuable time such as not queuing up for the Eiffel Tower when you can see how the city looks from up there by opening the app.

 

[Kukulcan]

it may save you valuable time such as not queuing up for the Eiffel Tower when you can see how the city looks from up there by opening the app.

*lol* but it would be a nice idea to show "traffic" for such stuff, either by Museums sending wait times or automatically calculating wait times like road traffic.

 

[dv8r]

Flyover is - in my opinion - as helpful as StreetView when you're lost in a city. I don't know how it is in your city, but in my city StreetView is VERY outdated. Maybe 80% of the shops showing in my street aren't even there anymore, so this "street level detail" is pretty useless for finding your way anyway. What I need though is streets, buildings, parks etc. that are easily recognizable and that don't change that often than shops, and for this Flyover is very useable.

You are aware that Flyover won't magically update without them doing another flyover are You not? Just like StreetView static information get's outdated rather quickly in the real world. So will it be cheaper to send a plane or a car?

 

[dv8r]

So apple should invest a fortune and years of work with the result that people say, oh they did a copy of streetview? I would rather have them spend that money in new ideas that might result in something really helpful.

New ideas without any practical usage sounds fairly boring - why not try to do the task: help people navigate.

The relation of cost vs. usefulness of streetview is pretty bad IMO.

Might be because You don't know how StreetView really works - Google uses it to scan storefronts, signs and to get a feel for the flow of traffic. This is why Google is better at getting your placement in lanes right most times (feel free to test this yourself) and it's also a tool for them to check user submission and editions quickly. Having the images is just a nice bi-product...

 

[Kukulcan]

Might be because You don't know how StreetView really works - Google uses it to scan storefronts, signs and to get a feel for the flow of traffic. This is why Google is better at getting your placement in lanes right most times (feel free to test this yourself) and it's also a tool for them to check user submission and editions quickly. Having the images is just a nice bi-product...

I have the "problem" that Apple Maps TBT works flawlessly for me and what I noticed is, that Siri reads much more content from street signs than Navigon does (beyond the official traffic direction signs).

 

[dv8r]

I have the "problem" that Apple Maps TBT works flawlessly for me and what I noticed is, that Siri reads much more content from street signs than Navigon does (beyond the official traffic direction signs).

Don't know Navigon - the comparison was placement and sign info in Android versus the iPhone.

 

[Kukulcan]

Don't know Navigon - the comparison was placement and sign info in Android versus the iPhone.

Apples sign info is more than sufficient, I don't want it to read more stuff. I can "blindly" find the right lane.

 

[BeachChair]

I'm pretty excited about 3D flyover. It helps that the coverage is amazing in my area.

It covers an area about 40 km tall (25 miles) and 50 km wide (30 miles).
It includes where I live now: Copenhagen, where I grew up in the suburbs 15 miles north of Copenhagen, as well as 95% of the places my family and friends live and work. And Roskilde, another fairly large danish city.

I'm also excited about the future prospects of 3D mapping. The technology C3 has proved itself. It's mind boggling how accurate and detailed the mapping they can derive from flyovers are. Once they start complimenting it with ground based 3D scanning, street level 3D navigation will be fantastic.

The debacle was a humiliation which Apple rarely endures.
What I hope is happening now is that Apple throws a lot of money at this. Spend billions outfitting planes and cars for C3's scanning techniques, employ thousands of data massagers in India and put Cupertino programmers to work developing a web based Apple map, to share their 3D mapping outside iOS devices and allow easier correction submissions from users.

As much as it will cost, it will never be a wasted investment. Google has already proved it is not a waste of money. The world values and will always value a 3D representation of our planet.
Google proved another thing, that they are not benevolent as we may have thought. They refused to share their data with Apple. Data which Google in large part obtained from contributions and corrections by normal people like you and me. We need an alternative to Google.

In one year, I think we will see Apple's answer to the criticism, with a monumental update to Apple Maps. Apple likes to save up and do things with a huge splash.

Now is a good time to have a pilot licence, a small Cessna and a lot of free time.

 

[cynics]

I was surprised with 3D flyover when I got it. I thought it would be An interactive tour like Google does. In case you didn't know landmark in google have an automatic flyover while giving you facts about that landmark.

I think the 3D in iOS looks better then in Google but both are just eye candy and relatively useless (for me). At least with google I can learn something though albeit uninteresting lol.

 

[dv8r]

Apples sign info is more than sufficient, I don't want it to read more stuff. I can "blindly" find the right lane.

Again - the additional info from StreetView ties into traffic patterns and correct placement during navigating. Your initial assumption on StreetView was wrong.

 

[Kukulcan]

Again - the additional info from StreetView ties into traffic patterns and correct placement during navigating. Your initial assumption on StreetView was wrong.

I didn't want to make any assumptions how profitable this is for Google. But I don't care how interesting this might be for navigation, if I already can get perfect routing without it.

I was talking about how much it would cost Apple to invest the same effort and how little extra it will give to us Apple maps users, compared to what Apple could do with the money.

 

[cynics]

I didn't want to make any assumptions how profitable this is for Google. But I don't care how interesting this might be for navigation, if I already can get perfect routing without it.

I was talking about how much it would cost Apple to invest the same effort and how little extra it will give to us Apple maps users, compared to what Apple could do with the money.

I agree to a point with this. Street view can be useful to some. I've used it to check where exactly parking garage entrances and are if there is street parking. But for the most park I never use it and the money could be better invested into correct their standard maps.

We could say the same about 3D view too. Ditch working on that and redirect all resources to their standard maps since they are far from perfect.

 

[Mliii]

...the money could be better invested into correct their standard maps.

We could say the same about 3D view too. Ditch working on that and redirect all resources to their standard maps since they are far from perfect.

I think this makes the most sense from an end-user's perspective. Leave some of the glamorous eye candy out and give the end user a solid, effective, well done, clear, easy to read, up to date and accurate Map App AND an effective MapKit API so developers can build on a good system and make it better.
Till then, Map App is just not a fully functional tool for many.

 

[dv8r]

I didn't want to make any assumptions how profitable this is for Google. But I don't care how interesting this might be for navigation, if I already can get perfect routing without it.

I was talking about how much it would cost Apple to invest the same effort and how little extra it will give to us Apple maps users, compared to what Apple could do with the money.

Your initial statement was:
"The relation of cost vs. usefulness of streetview is pretty bad IMO."

This assumption is wrong because You don't know what the additional data is used for - every mapping company does this kind of thing, Google only expanded it to allow browsing pictures they already take for mapping purposes. The "usefulness" of Streetview is the fact that You have maps You can navigate.

An example (Navteq):
http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/making-navteq-maps-a1038.php

 

[Kukulcan]

Your initial statement was:
"The relation of cost vs. usefulness of streetview is pretty bad IMO."

"The relation of cost vs. usefulness of streetview (for iOS users) is pretty bad IMO." That is because we don't get the extra value Android users may get out of it, and we don't need it because TomTom probably did and does the same already.

 

[THiPad]

It'd be kind of COOL, IF I WERE A BIRD and needed a visual on where I
was going...!!!

Give us Street View and Google, any day!!!

 

[dv8r]

"The relation of cost vs. usefulness of streetview (for iOS users) is pretty bad IMO." That is because we don't get the extra value Android users may get out of it, and we don't need it because TomTom probably did and does the same already.

Are You just debating to debate or do You not understand the way these kind of mapping solutions works and get updated?

In "the old days" on IOS 5.x you got almost the same value from StreetView as Android users - better maps, more POI's, better route planning, signage, etc etc. Again: StreetView is much more than just surfing the streets in a browser - it's an information gathering mechanism that Google uses to build their maps.

TomTom does the same and Apple will (either through TomTom or other partners) have to do the same for their maps.

 

[Kukulcan]

Are You just debating to debate or do You not understand the way these kind of mapping solutions works and get updated?

In "the old days" on IOS 5.x you got almost the same value from StreetView as Android users - better maps, more POI's, better route planning, signage, etc etc. Again: StreetView is much more than just surfing the streets in a browser - it's an information gathering mechanism that Google uses to build their maps.

TomTom does the same and Apple will (either through TomTom or other partners) have to do the same for their maps.

That's about what I wrote.

But if google street view is such an information gathering machine and gives us better POIs, why didn't the drivers at least corrected the most obviously missing ones? In my area there is streetview images with an "important" supermarket on it and no POI for it. So I really doubt the drivers made correction nor did anybody check the images for POIs.

And I never planned a route with google as route planning make no sense for me without TBT, so I used SatNavs for that.

About the signs, yeah, probably TomTom did something similar, but with mapping the world for flyover I am sure we don't need that much longer to read the signs.

Please stop answering you have proven your point how great street view is - and even more my point that it makes no sense for Apple to do it once again.

 

[el3ktro]

Sorry, but your ability to adapt must be very low if you can't recognize Google streetview images, just because a certain shop is no longer.

I can very well adapt to that, what I was trying to say is that the street-level photos in StreetView often don't give you any useful additional information, because for the most time they are pretty outdated. They look nice, but they don't help you MORE in finding your way than Flyover would.

 

[8a22a]

It'd be kind of COOL, IF I WERE A BIRD and needed a visual on where I
was going...!!!

Give us Street View and Google, any day!!!

Even on Wednesday?

 

[iZac]

The thing is, in my limited use of the 3D flyover - at an arms length it looks OK, but if you interrogate it in any detail at all ... well it looks like *****.

So it's a tech demo that looks awful and is useless. Why bother. The only reason I can think that Apple included it was that they wanted the building height info for the 'map' based 3D, and thought they might as well give it a go on the satellite view.

Unless they want to fund actual 3D modelling of buildings like Google do, I say don't bother.