5 ms·
+1 I dont see why this was needed - it is a regression in terms of usability and performance (loading performance - cant comment on quality of the maps just ye
by mattlondon 8y ago
+1
I dont see why this was needed - it is a regression in terms of usability and performance (loading performance - cant comment on quality of the maps just yet, but I understand from others that the map data is woeful).
Really disappointed. I used to recommend DDG to everyone, but this feels like a sell-out - without any justification for why they've done it, my mind just leaps to conclusions about marketing and trying to get "cool points".
- lukeqsee 8y agoI strongly suspect this was not a sell-out. I suspect it was more a move to save a good deal of money. Mapbox is very expensive at DDG-scale, and given how lean and efficient they like to run things, I can easily understand this choice. The fact that Apple also cares (loudly) about privacy makes it even easier. (I don't work for Apple and I run a competitor to Mapbox.)
- sabas_ge 8y agoThey could have rolled out their own (privacy-focused) map service. The data is open, the stack is open as well.
- tracker1 8y agoAnd how much do the database server(s) cost, not to mention pushing map tiles out in terms of data costs. DDG isn't exactly flush with cash like google and apple are.
- Aeolun 8y agoNot much at all. In fact, since the tiles are only generated once, they could stick a CDN in front and never have to worry about anything but data transfer costs afterwards.
- tracker1 8y agoThat CDN isn't free all the content and traffic overhead has costs, CDN charges you for each request, and every byte sent. On a small (under a million users a day) application it may not be that much... but even ten of millions of users a day, it costs a LOT Hell, why do you think google invested so much time into image compression tech to save a few bytes here and there.
- Brakenshire 8y agoI doubt it’s much, the whole OSM infrastructure used to be handled as a favour by one of the London universities. I doubt DDG Maps is operating at significantly higher scale, especially once you take into account they just have to serve static data.
- rmc 8y agoOSM data is constantly changing, being improved and expanded.
- sabas_ge 8y agoMore or less as paying some service provider to do that for you, but they could have marketed it positively, as Qwant has done just last month (see https://www.qwant.com/maps/ https://www.qwant.com/maps/ which incidentally is open source as well)
- gourou 8y agoIf you're looking for privacy protection, Qwant's partnership with Huawei doesn't sound great https://e.huawei.com/us/publications/global/ict_insights/hw_410919/success/201501081636 https://e.huawei.com/us/publications/global/ict_insights/hw_...
- adrianN 8y agoDo you think Apple sells their maps below cost, or that Apple is able (due to its scale?) to get significantly better deals than DDG could get?
- Freak_NL 8y agoDefinitely a severe regression in the Netherlands. Apple Maps doesn't even show houses, and has only a fraction of the POI's OpenStreetMap has. It doesn't have directions for bicycles either — and it leaves out a bunch of dedicated cycleways in my area. And the colours! All features seem to bleed into their low-contrast pastel neighbours. This doesn't feel like a proper match for DuckDuckGo at all.
- Brakenshire 8y agoSomeone mentioned Qwant Maps upthread, I think that’s what I’ll use instead.
- Freak_NL 8y agoQwant Maps is OpenStreetMap data with custom styling that makes it look more like Google/Apple/Bing Maps. It's very pastellish.
- aiisjustanif 8y agoOne of my reasons for not use DDG was maps, another big one is instant airline data on search query results (which isn't fair bc Google owns ITA). This upgrade to maps is awesome, IMO Mapbox felt like I was in the stone ages for map functionality and UI.