3 ms·
Please, this guy. He defends Apple as if it were a deity. I don't think I've ever seen a truly substantial criticism of Apple come out of him. Do we really beli
by cookiecaper 14y ago
Please, this guy. He defends Apple as if it were a deity. I don't think I've ever seen a truly substantial criticism of Apple come out of him. Do we really believe that Apple is infallible?
It makes sense for Apple to seek liberation from Google's chokehold on Maps, and to make plans to deploy this when it was ready. So, out of his extremely malformed recounting of Apple's available options, choice #3 is the best in the long term, but it's not the best choice right now, when Apple's in-house version is leading people down dead-ends into wooded areas when they're almost out of gas (http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/31930446388/neither-of-those-exist-the-bottom-one-is-in-a http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/31930446388/neithe...) and doing similarly perilous things all the time. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone.
iPhone would continue to thrive even with less featureful maps support. The addition of Latitude would not be an invasion of privacy as Gruber suggests, because it's off by default and in fact when I try to enable Latitude (on road trips, so family can track progress) I typically have a hard time finding it. While neither option 1 nor option 2 is ideal for Apple, both were plausible, reasonable solutions until their in-house maps solution was ready. This, again, should be obvious.
It is immensely irresponsible to rip out something as critical and relied upon, not just for convenience but for safety, as Maps and replace it with a half-baked, disastrously incomplete lookalike. I totally sympathize with Apple wanting out of Google's grip, but we need to be serious here. They released far, far too early, and their draconian and self-serving policies for App Store inclusion have left customers (in some cases literally) stranded.
Apple did a bad thing with this maps release. I would call Google right up and strike a deal to push an OTA update that put the old maps back right away if I were them.
- rimantas 14y ago> Please, this guy. Yes this guy. One of the best writers about things related to Apple. > He defends Apple as if it were a deity. No, he does not. > I don't think I've ever seen a truly substantial > criticism of Apple come out of him. My guess the reason for that is that you just dismiss Gruber as "this guy" and don't read what he writes. Do we really believe that Apple is infallible? No.
- cookiecaper 14y ago>> He defends Apple as if it were a deity. >No, he does not. He sure seems like he's doing it to me. This whole post is about how Apple Maps aren't really what they seem, and it's OK that Apple did this because what else was Apple supposed to do? Just let Google have something they want? Make a compromise when ideal options aren't tenable? Ha! The Great and Powerful Apple could never stoop to such levels, reserved for mere-mortal companies. The Great and Powerful Apple operates on a different plane, above reproach, incomprehensible to normal minds. While we may never fully understand The Great and Powerful Apple until the next life, we must trust that they have our best interest at heart, and always do the best thing, like replace functional mapping software with a ridiculously under-prepared conflagration that would have people drive off cliffs. This may seem foolish to us, but the wisdom of The Great and Powerful Apple sometimes appears as foolishness to men.
- cefstat 14y agoStrange. The way I read his article was "Apple was between a rock and a hard place. They chose the hard place because that made more sense for them". He doesn't praise Maps. He describes why he thinks Apple chose to make a less than perfect Maps app, i.e., "made a compromise when ideal options weren't tenable".