Wow. Apple Maps is a disaster.

[Cybbe]

Apparently, the whole UK maps in vector is <200mb (!).

You can already download vector based maps from e.g. OSM for e.g. London. The size of these suggest tall of UK would be larger, but then again they tend to include more data.

The vector based maps on Android can be downloaded in approx. 80 MB batches, 6 locations saved at a time.

 

[John.B]

You can already download vector based maps from e.g. OSM for e.g. London. The size of these suggest tall of UK would be larger, but then again they tend to include more data.

The vector based maps on Android can be downloaded in approx. 80 MB batches, 6 locations saved at a time.

And although I know the Maps are not up to snuff for some locations, but Eric Schmidt would've never allowed iPhone users to be able to download Google's vector map tiles to their iPhones. Not to mention turn-by-turn directions, etc.

Sometimes a clean break is the best way to go.

 

[dv8r]

Sometimes a clean break is the best way to go.

One should think they have had this planned for some time and were able to do it at bit more professional than what they actually did. They take HiRes photos of the various parts on the iPhone 5 to match them perfectly - maybe some of this "care" should also have gone into their Maps venture?

 

[rabbitohs77]

Apple Maps not good

I have found the maps app, a disaster in Australia, the other night after being attacked on the street, looked for the nearest Police Station via Apple Maps, the location it showed me, was incorrect, and also asking siri, this location was wrong, I do hope that Apple improve the Maps application very soon, so these critical and emergency situations don't reoccur

 

[KnightWRX]

And although I know the Maps are not up to snuff for some locations, but Eric Schmidt would've never allowed iPhone users to be able to download Google's vector map tiles to their iPhones. Not to mention turn-by-turn directions, etc.

Sometimes a clean break is the best way to go.

People keep repeating that, ignoring the fact that Google did offer those things to Apple in exchange for Google branding ("Maps by Apple, powered by Google" type stuff) and inclusion of Google Latitude in the OS (find my friends, the Google version).

So Eric Schmidt (what does he have to do with all of this anyhow ? Boy do people like bringing him up for no reason at all) definately would have allowed iPhone users to have vector maps and turn by turn. Apple just didn't like those terms, and instead opted for the PR nightmare of trying to make maps in a hurry.

Sometimes, a steady introduction in controlled phases is the best way to go. OS X taught them that, they should have taken notes. OS X was launched properly, optional at first, for users that wanted to be bleeding edge and then as a general release when it was actually production ready. Maps should have followed the same route.

----------

One should think they have had this planned for some time and were able to do it at bit more professional than what they actually did. They take HiRes photos of the various parts on the iPhone 5 to match them perfectly - maybe some of this "care" should also have gone into their Maps venture?

And frankly, we shouldn't expect or demand less from Apple. People trying to apologize and defend Apple in this area apparently don't like Apple to succeed and don't hold them to high standards.

Maybe those guys are the true haters ? Just a thought...

 

[mnemonix]

Maybe those guys are the true haters ? Just a thought...

That or they lack any critical reasoning ability... as evidenced by the 'but it works for me' type comments. Either way they probably shouldn't be allowed to post unsupervised on internet forums.

 

[shandyman]

People keep repeating that, ignoring the fact that Google did offer those things to Apple in exchange for Google branding ("Maps by Apple, powered by Google" type stuff) and inclusion of Google Latitude in the OS (find my friends, the Google version).

So Eric Schmidt (what does he have to do with all of this anyhow ? Boy do people like bringing him up for no reason at all) definately would have allowed iPhone users to have vector maps and turn by turn. Apple just didn't like those terms...

You really think those terms were fair? People are ignoring the fact due to them being absurd terms and make no business sense... Do you think if roles were reversed, that Google would have allowed it?

 

[dv8r]

You really think those terms were fair? People are ignoring the fact due to them being absurd terms and make no business sense... Do you think if roles were reversed, that Google would have allowed it?

No they wouldn't, they broke up years ago. If the terms are fair or not, really depends on your general attitude towards Google - they want to live off their data and those need to improve if they are to remain in business. I'm pretty sure Apple knows (and knew) this when they sat down with Google to renew terms - and since Apple is moving towards this space also no deal could be made.

 

[gentlefury]

works great for me.

 

[Idefix]

Even Mad Magazine is getting into the act of ridiculing Apple's Maps:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...aul-steinberg-new-yorker-cover_n_1934976.html

The bad publicity just keeps piling on!

Just goes to show that Maps really is a joke...

 

[BoxerGT2.5]

When you see some of the bone headed mistakes on maps you wonder just how old the data set Apple is using? It has to be from the early 90's and then they just guessed where things are.

 

[theautopilot]

Yet the Apple Defence League still continue to defend it. Its incredible what the effect of such love and devotion for a electronics corporation can have on even an intelligent persons sense of reality perspective.

 

[John.B]

People keep repeating that, ignoring the fact that Google did offer those things to Apple in exchange for Google branding ("Maps by Apple, powered by Google" type stuff) and inclusion of Google Latitude in the OS (find my friends, the Google version).

So Eric Schmidt (what does he have to do with all of this anyhow ? Boy do people like bringing him up for no reason at all) definately would have allowed iPhone users to have vector maps and turn by turn. Apple just didn't like those terms, and instead opted for the PR nightmare of trying to make maps in a hurry.

In return for Google's ability to track iPhone users' locations on a 24/7 basis?

Seriously, you think this would've been an acceptable trade off?

Do you work for Google or just hold Google stock?

 

[PrometheusGeek]

This Maps attitude is the same pathetic attitude that drove the silly Occupy movement. "We're the 99% and we want our ********** Maps!" When, in reality, they're nowhere near the 99%, they're just the most ridiculously obnoxious.

 

[dv8r]

This Maps attitude is the same pathetic attitude that drove the silly Occupy movement. "We're the 99% and we want our ********** Maps!" When, in reality, they're nowhere near the 99%, they're just the most ridiculously obnoxious.

Good analogy - because Apple certainly is a "Job creator" in that they now have the 99% updating POI's for the next couple of years...

 

[therationalist]

You have a 100 billion dollars.. write a 10 billion cheque to nokia or bing and buy their data to use and do as you please.

 

[KnightWRX]

In return for Google's ability to track iPhone users' locations on a 24/7 basis?

Seriously, you think this would've been an acceptable trade off?

Do you work for Google or just hold Google stock?

Apple and Find my Friends. Same thing. And Yes, since Google Latitude is an optional service, you don't have to sign up for it, nor turn it on at all times. It's also already available as a 3rd party app in the app store, building it into the OS would have been like the Twitter and Facebook integration. Just another option under Settings.

No, I don't work for Google nor own their stock. Do you work for Apple or own Apple stock ?

 

[John.B]

Apple and Find my Friends. Same thing. And Yes, since Google Latitude is an optional service, you don't have to sign up for it, nor turn it on at all times. It's also already available as a 3rd party app in the app store, building it into the OS would have been like the Twitter and Facebook integration. Just another option under Settings.

You just can't seem to find any scenario where you would agree that Apple has the right to be prudent when it comes to Google and user privacy.

Apple isn't in the business of marketing information about their users. Google is.

And, really, why should Google be able to track iPhone users' locations in the first place? So what if it's opt-in? Google has been known to bypass opt-in privacy features before. True, only when they thought they could get away with it, but still... How would this be any different? Based on past experience, that would be a honeypot that they couldn't help themselves but to raid at the first opportunity.

At the end of the day, people just don't trust Google's motives when it comes to privacy, due mostly to repeated statements that Eric Schmidt has made in public (links available on request).

Having the ability to index a user's every move isn't something Apple should ever put in the hands of a competitor, IMO. And, yes, it sounds even more sinister when Google demands that level of detailed user tracking in exchange for turn-by-turn directions.

No, I think sometimes a clean break is the right approach.

 

[Daveoc64]

And, really, why should Google be able to track iPhone users' locations in the first place? So what if it's opt-in?

You're ignoring two things:

1) Google can do it with the Google Latitude App in the App Store

2) Some people WANT to be tracked. The whole point is that you can share your location with people you trust.

If users ask to be tracked, why shouldn't they have that option? You're just unable to come up with a valid reason for that.

Apple does the same thing with "Find My Friends" - why should Apple be trusted? Facebook does similar things with their products too, they don't have a great privacy reputation - yet those features are now built in to iOS.

Based on past experience, that would be a honeypot that they couldn't help themselves but to raid at the first opportunity.

Why do they need Latitude to do that? If they're going to break the law like that what makes you think that they need Latitude to be part of iOS? Your scenario is just too far fetched to begin with.

Google is upfront about the data it collects and uses from users. The instances where they've been in trouble with the law have related to data collection outside of their services (like the Street View cars collecting Wi-Fi data).

 

[John.B]

You're ignoring two things:

1) Google can do it with the Google Latitude App in the App Store

2) Some people WANT to be tracked. The whole point is that you can share your location with people you trust.

If users ask to be tracked, why shouldn't they have that option? You're just unable to come up with a valid reason for that.

And they willingly signed up to let Google track them. True opt-in.

That's very different than giving Google that information about potentially every iPhone user.

Apple does the same thing with "Find My Friends" - why should Apple be trusted? Facebook does similar things with their products too, they don't have a great privacy reputation - yet those features are now built in to iOS.

Because these types of things are SOP with Google:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ew-wifi-data-from-uk-several-other-countries/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/10/business/la-fi-google-ftc-20120810

Seriously, should I break out the "creepy Eric Schimidt" quotes?

 

[Daveoc64]

And they willingly signed up to let Google track them. True opt-in.

That's very different than giving Google that information about potentially every iPhone user.

So if I download the App and sign in with my Google Account, then tell it to track me, that's opting in, but if I use an App that's part of the OS and sign in with my Google Account, and click the "Track Me" button that's NOT opting in?

What's the difference?

You're working on some bizarre assumption that Google would somehow manipulate an App that Apple writes into doing something exceptionally illegal - far beyond anything any major technology company has ever done.

Think about it for a minute.

Tracking people, without their permission, when they've basically told you not to do it. That's a bit different to carelessly collecting some (pretty useless) data when you scan for Wi-Fi networks.

 

[nikomakhos]

It would be nice if Apple could at least fix the alignement of maps and satellite images. The hybrid mode is totally unusable and I'm not really sure wich one the POIs use for location.

(Also notice those missing roads. And that POI is in totally wrong place + not a gas station. It's a small convenience store.)

 

[IcyTexx]

The biggest thing that's bugging me is this:

Maps right after the double-tap unzoom:

A few seconds later:


Why do they become so blurry?

Google Maps:

 

[John.B]

So if I download the App and sign in with my Google Account, then tell it to track me, that's opting in, but if I use an App that's part of the OS and sign in with my Google Account, and click the "Track Me" button that's NOT opting in?

What's the difference?

Oh, come on, don't play dense.

The difference is that, if you want to give Google the ability to track you, you have to download and configure a Google app specifically designed to do that.

What Google demanded was to have their location tracking baked-in as a core feature of iOS.

Why, given Apple's history with Google, would anyone at Apple in their right minds allow that to happen? Google is Apple's competitor, not their partner.

Sometimes a clean break is the right approach.

You're working on some bizarre assumption that Google would somehow manipulate an App that Apple writes into doing something exceptionally illegal - far beyond anything any major technology company has ever done.

Seriously? You mean like figuring out how to surrepticiously defeat Safari 3rd party cookie restrictions when it impacted their bottom line?

You couldn't think of a Google-provided free service that would require people to turn on location tracking in the default Maps app, given an iOS version with Latitude tracking baked in?

 

[Daveoc64]

What Google demanded was to have their location tracking baked-in as a core feature of iOS.

But still it would be opt-in, so what's the problem? You can't use Google Latitude without logging in to your Google Account and opting-in. There would be no point in it arbitrarily tracking people.

You couldn't think of a Google-provided free service that would require people to turn on location tracking in the default Maps app, given an iOS version with Latitude tracking baked in?

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Seriously? You mean like figuring out how to surrepticiously defeat Safari 3rd party cookie restrictions when it impacted their bottom line?

I don't see how this is relevant. Your suggestion is still that Google would willingly track people's location by tricking users AND Apple. That's very serious suggestion, so I'm treating it as such.

That would result in far more than a small fine.