What is the practicality of flyover mapping?

[DaffyDuck]

Calm down. Even C3 sees the need for driving cars because along with flyover, they also demoed 3D street view, as an earlier poster pointed out. Also, you can dream as much as you want but airplanes with automated stitching is not going to provide enough resolution to read a small sign in a shop window. It's just not going to happen.

Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike flyover. I like it quite a bit actually. It looks particularly awesome when panning while looking straight down. If it is expanded with 3D street view and Apple adds more information to the regular map view like one way street directions, for example, and makes building outlines in map view look less amateurish compared to Google Maps, I'll be very happy.

 

[TLewis]

Precisely. This is what people don't get. Flyover is for the kinds of things you mentioned and Street View is absolutely terrible for those kinds of things. And likewise, Street View is great for reading a sign in a specific spot which Flyover isn't good for.

They are for different purposes. Flyover isn't a replacement for Street View in its best use cases but at the same time Street View isn't a replacement for Flyover in its best use cases either.

This can't be emphasized enough.

Edit: You gotta hand it to Apple's marketing though. Flyover is "da winna" for most pimpable feature.

 

[DaffyDuck]

Flyover vs same intersection in Street View. With street view you can tour the streets of New York or Amsterdam. Flyover? Not so much.

I've also posted the uncropped flyover screenshot.

 

[mrsir2009]

They might not have 3D mapping of everywhere yet but Google didn't have street view everywhere in an instant. It took them time to build up the coverage as it will Apple but we also do not know how much they already have from their purchase of C3 who had previously showcased other places like London, Venice and Kenya.

Sure, but why would I want to wait all over again for Apple to do pretty much the same thing as Google (which has pretty much the whole western world covered)?

 

[pnyc]

This is an example of Apple thinking out of the box, far far ahead of what you and me might be able to imagine.

Picture this, it's year 2500 you just strapped on your jetpack and you're flying around looking for a Starbucks to sit at and pose with your latest isomething you're 50 feet up in the air ask yourself what do you need, street view or flyover view. Bam!

 

[8a22a]

Sure, but why would I want to wait all over again for Apple to do pretty much the same thing as Google (which has pretty much the whole western world covered)?

I admire Apple for having the balls to take on Google.

I'm starting to understand Apple's dislike for Google.

 

[mrsir2009]

I admire Apple for having the balls to take on Google.

I'm starting to understand Apple's dislike for Google.

It's going to be one big-ass mission to catch up with all that... Jesus...

 

[8a22a]

It's going to be one big-ass mission to catch up with all that... Jesus...

If anyone can, Apple can.

 

[Ljohnson72]

I admire Apple for having the balls to take on Google.

I'm starting to understand Apple's dislike for Google.

What?

 

[newagemac]

Flyover vs same intersection in Street View. With street view you can tour the streets of New York or Amsterdam. Flyover? Not so much.

I've also posted the uncropped flyover screenshot.

Your post doesn't make sense. Unlike Street View, flyover isn't static. Why did you post just a static overhead "bird-eye" view when Apple's 3D maps allow you to do much more than just a bird's eye view from way up in the sky. It's much more flexible and interactive than a static image.

That's about as ridiculous as posting a zoomed out view of the regular maps and then claiming there are no POI and street details.

You can get much closer as well as much more parallel by panning with 2 fingers than the image you posted. And of course you have fully free movement with Flyover to explore the entire city whereas Street View is seriously limited in movement. You would be better off actually driving around the city than trying to tap on arrows to move backwards and forwards a few feet in Street View along Street View's limited strict path.

 

[DaffyDuck]

Your post doesn't make sense. Unlike Street View, flyover isn't static. Why did you post just a static overhead "bird-eye" view when Apple's 3D maps allow you to do much more than just a bird's eye view from way up in the sky. It's much more flexible and interactive than a static image.

You can get much closer as well as much more parallel by panning with 2 fingers than the image you posted.

You are wrong. That is as close as you can get to the street in that location. Apparently you have not tried it. Also, the imagery is 3D but it is just as static as Street View. They aren't going to fly drones 24/7 over the entire world.

One thing you need to think about is that at the height planes have to fly over cities, the minimum angle at which the photos can be taken at depends on how far away the subject location is and what might be blocking it, like a tall building. In a city, there might only be 10 to 15 degrees from 90 to work with. Also, in these locations, it is rare that light is bathing the street at all times. They can account for that by taking many photos at different apertures and combining (HDR) and I believe they are doing that however, as you can see, it is limited.

----------

If anyone can, Apple can.

I agree. The question is will they? I happen to believe that Maps is an integral part of Google's entire business model while maps is just a feature for Apple. Maps helps drive Google's advertising business. What does maps do for Apple?

 

[newagemac]

I'm sorry DaffyDuck but the image you posted obviously doesn't show any of the zooming, panning or tilting you can do with Flyover so it is misleading. And the interactive nature of Apple's 3D maps using the technology developed by C3 is what makes it so different from Street View's strictly limited navigation ability.

Are you seriously saying that Street View is just as interactive and flexible and not more limiting than the declassified military tech from C3 that Apple is using? The military could have just used Google's Street View for targeting?

Come on now.

This thread is about the practicality of flyover. Street View is no replacement for flyover. It doesn't come anywhere near the capability. I can't navigate quickly in Street View. I can't see two turns ahead in Street View. I can't see around a building in context of my current location in Street View. I can't see both in front of and behind a building at the same time in Street View. I can't explore a park in Street View. I can't locate parking in Street View. If I was lost in the middle of the woods, Street View would be pointless. All of these things flyover can do very well.

 

[newagemac]

I agree. The question is will they? I happen to believe that Maps is an integral part of Google's entire business model while maps is just a feature for Apple. Maps helps drive Google's advertising business. What does maps do for Apple?

You're looking at the past and not the future. The fact that Apple bought 3 different mapping companies and they way they focused on it in the Keynote means they see this as very important to iOS. They don't usually spend their money like that. I would say this is just as important as Siri now is to them. Maps is not just another feature anymore. It is now and will be as important for driving hardware sales for Apple as it is to Google for driving advertising.

And creating really good and usable maps is all about the user experience, usability, visuals, and integration of hardware features with software (GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, compass, etc.). Something that touches their particular fields of expertise very well.

Sure Google Maps has been the best we've had so far but they haven't really had much competition. The competition isn't exactly known for those particular areas of expertise and neither is Google. I think mobile maps can be a whole lot more usable than what Google has offered so far.

 

[MattInOz]

I agree. The question is will they? I happen to believe that Maps is an integral part of Google's entire business model while maps is just a feature for Apple. Maps helps drive Google's advertising business. What does maps do for Apple?

so in other words Apple wants in on search. Between Siri and maps they now have the key interfaces to information I want to find. More so they want to app source the database. So businesses use an app presence to make sure they are visible and good native apps sell more devices.

 

[The Phazer]

I would say this is just as important as Siri now is to them.

I agree.

The problem is Siri has also been an unfinished catastrophe, which is why Apple are getting sued over the POS, so being as important as that isn't actually very good news.

 

[newagemac]

I agree.

The problem is Siri has also been an unfinished catastrophe, which is why Apple are getting sued over the POS, so being as important as that isn't actually very good news.

Ok this just confirmed for me that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And so I looked at your post history and it was just as I figured. Another person claiming to own Apple products but looking for every opportunity in every thread to say something negative about Apple and the products they "claim" to own. On an Apple based forum at that. So apparently you hate Apple but you can't stop buying their products. Sure. You do realize anyone can view your post history right? I'll have Siri to remind me to put you on ignore.

 

[The Phazer]

Ok this just confirmed for me that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And so I looked at your post history and it was just as I figured. Another person claiming to own Apple products but looking for every opportunity in every thread to say something negative about Apple and the products they "claim" to own. On an Apple based forum at that. So apparently you hate Apple but you can't stop buying their products. Sure. You do realize anyone can view your post history right? I'll have Siri to remind me to put you on ignore.

Congrats on having both no critical faculty and not getting past the first page then.

 

[DaffyDuck]

I'm sorry DaffyDuck but the image you posted obviously doesn't show any of the zooming, panning or tilting you can do with Flyover so it is misleading. And the interactive nature of Apple's 3D maps using the technology developed by C3 is what makes it so different from Street View's strictly limited navigation ability.

It's only misleading if you didn't understand the point I was making. With street view you can tour the streets of New York or Amsterdam. You can't with Flyover, at least not nearly as well...which is probably why C3 has their own street view technology.

Are you seriously saying that Street View is just as interactive and flexible and not more limiting than the declassified military tech from C3 that Apple is using? The military could have just used Google's Street View for targeting?

Come on now.

Flyover really should not even be compared to street view. It should be compared with good satellite imagery. So yeah, maybe street view shouldn't even enter discussion here. My apologies for being a little off topic.

This thread is about the practicality of flyover. Street View is no replacement for flyover. It doesn't come anywhere near the capability. I can't navigate quickly in Street View. I can't see two turns ahead in Street View. I can't see around a building in context of my current location in Street View. I can't see both in front of and behind a building at the same time in Street View. I can't explore a park in Street View. I can't locate parking in Street View. If I was lost in the middle of the woods, Street View would be pointless. All of these things flyover can do very well.

I would argue that flyover adds minimal value over high quality 2D satellite imagery for most if not all of what you listed. All the things you mentioned above, I did just fine with existing maps. Again, I don't dislike Flyover. I dislike losing street view. What is flyover really adding that satellite photos are missing? The vertical structure of buildings, trees, etc. What is the value when the resolution is so poor? With street view you can actually get relevant information from sides of buildings. Look at the park comparison. Are you seeing something in the 3D version that is missing in Google's 2D version? I would argue that the satellite image makes it clear that the park is a popular place to sunbathe on a blanket. I can't really tell that from the flyover version. Beyond that, they both tell the same story.

My Apple Gear:
Early 2011 17" MacBook Pro
2006 15" MacBook Pro
2007 13" MacBook
iPad 3, 64GB, Verizon
iPad 2, 16GB, Wifi
iPhone 4S, 32GB, AT&T
iPhone 4, 16GB, AT&T
(owned and sold every other gen iPhone)
iPod Classic 5th gen 80GB
iPod Classic 3rd gen 40GB
iPod Touch 4th gen
iPod Nano 1st gen
iPod Shuffle 4th gen
AppleTV 3
AppleTV 2

 

[iPhoneApple]

Flyover is nice when you want to look at a tall building since Street View can't show all of it

 

[MozMan68]

This is really just a tomatoe or tomato issue...I prefer flyover to street view simply because of the speed in which I can see more information.

Maybe some folks just can't visualize streets/buildings/directions as well as me...I don't know.

Some people are map readers and some need a turn-by-turn with fifty references to help them make it two blocks.

Street view has always been a novelty to me....maybe once I actually looked at it to see what a store front looked like, but I would have found it anyway without street view.

 

[newagemac]

You're still posting shots from high up without any panning, zooming, or tilting and completely missing the point of flyover with your "bird's eye view" screenshots. This doesn't look anything like the satellite style imagery you're referring to:

 

[Ljohnson72]

You're still posting shots from high up without any panning, zooming, or tilting and completely missing the point of flyover with your "bird's eye view" screenshots. This doesn't look anything like the satellite style imagery you're referring to:

You're not understanding the fact that many high density metropolitan areas CANNOT pan/zoom/tilt like in an open environment.

 

[DaffyDuck]

You're still posting shots from high up without any panning, zooming, or tilting and completely missing the point of flyover with your "bird's eye view" screenshots. This doesn't look anything like the satellite style imagery you're referring to:

Umm...those are even farther away than the second image I posted above (which was at maximum zoom). It's fun arguing about a program with someone who hasn't used it.

 

[newagemac]

Umm...those are even farther away than the second image I posted above (which was at maximum zoom). It's fun arguing about a program with someone who hasn't used it.

All of the shots you posted were directly overhead. Do you not know how to get a different angle? It seems not. It is the fact that all of them are at bird's eye view like a satellite shot more than anything else. Try using two fingers and drag them upward. Your shots don't show anything like that.

 

[bjones521]

Question for EVERYONE HERE

I have read the majority of this thread and no one has mentioned this. I have one question for everyone here. Can you please tell me ONE useful thing you will use flyover for??

Like today, With street level I was able to put in the Address to my Dr and see what the building looked like so I would know exactly where to go! I use it all the time for instances like that.

What could you use flyover for?? if you aren't a pilot or spiderman?