5 ms·

The debate about iOS maps is driving me absolutely crazy, because any fool can see that this is not about the data (in the US, at least). This is about quality

The debate about iOS maps is driving me absolutely crazy, because any fool can see that this is not about the data (in the US, at least). This is about quality of search results. Apple has had search in its products for a long time. It has search in its documentation, in Spotlight, in Mail.app. All of this search technology is crap. Spotlight is fast, but it's fast crap. I was in the bay area this week, and searched for San Francisco International. The data is not lacking for this search result. The roads are there in the Maps app database. Anyone want to guess the result of my search? Apple partisans want to believe that this is a data problem. If it were a data problem, then it'd only be a matter of time before Maps.app were a solved problem. Unfortunately, it's not. It's a search problem. I know absolutely nothing about the technical details about how to implement a decent search, but I do know this: Apple has never, not once, delivered a product that gave decent search results. So good luck, Apple. Hopefully this problem can be solved by throwing money at it. Something tells me that it can't, though.

Bud 14y ago
1. You were searching for an airport, left out the word "airport", which is the most important word, and it's Apple's fault? 2. I just went into Maps and searched for "San Francisco International". There were two hits, and the second hit was the airport. The other hit was for a business in SF with "International" as the first word in its name. These do not seem like completely awful search results to me. 3. Why are you assuming (and yes, it's a complete assumption which is free of evidence) that "Apple partisans want to believe" (you can read minds now too?) that it's only a data problem? I'm an Apple partisan, and I worked on the Maps team, specifically on quality of search results. I can tell you that what I believe is that it is both a problem of needing to refine the database, and also a problem of needing to continue to improve the search capability. Does this change your assumptions?
- joeyo 14y ago
  > 1. You were searching for an airport, left out the word > "airport", which is the most important word, and it's > Apple's fault? Yes, it is Apple's fault, in a sense, because the customer is always right. Moreover, a competitor (Google) is able to connect the dots and return the right results. I just searched that same phrase on Android and it gave me directions to the airport in question, along with a phone number and other useful information. Whether it is able achieve that feat because it knows that I have been to SFO within the last month, or knows that I have emails in my inbox that pertain to the airport, or because more users click through to SFO than other hits for that search phrase or because they use black magic is beside the point: Google's search results are simply better.
  - guywithabike 14y ago
    Why not just search for "sfo" or "airport", both of which return the airport correctly on iOS 6's maps? Typing out "san francisco international" and leaving out "airport" seems incredibly contrived.
    - zmmz 14y ago
      No, it isn't. When most people refer to a place, they refer to it by it's common name. You fly to JFK, Heathrow, Charles de Gaule, Gatwick, Luton, O'Hare, etc. There is no need to add "airport" to something which so obviously is one in the context. The familiarity of common names is why wikipedia uses them for article names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common...
      - Bud 14y ago
        You're missing something obvious, which is that out of all the airports you listed, NONE of them is named after the city it's in or near. SFO, of course, is. Which makes this particular search MUCH more ambiguous unless you include the word "airport".
    - reddit_clone 14y ago
      The answer to the problem of not coming up with the right answer for a perfectly reasonable query is 'Change your query'? Apple apologists are actually making Apple lazy and entitled. Any sub standard stuff needs to be pointed out. Not hand-waved away.
    - untog 14y ago
      Why should I have to? Google knows exactly what I'm asking for when I enter any of those terms, Apple does not. That is a deficiency on Apple's part, I shouldn't have to change my behaviour.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  Imagine how much better Google results would be if, instead of returning what you wanted, they told you off for not typing an easier to find query.
- billjings 14y ago
  1. I can't make you see the problem if you don't want to see it. The phrase "San Francisco International" is conversationally unambiguous. 2. I'm no longer in the area, but at the time I made the search I got something like 5-10 results, none of which was clearly the airport. 3. That's my explanation for why nobody is talking about what I feel is the giant elephant sitting in the corner. Maybe I'm wrong. If Apple partisans actually think that the search is fine, that might be a better explanation.
josephlord 14y ago
Search could be better. The POI information is pretty inaccurate in places and just sparse in others but the address information is pretty good. By the way couldn't you just have searched for SFO? That works even when looking at another part of the world. And it is much less typing.
paulsutter 14y ago
You're right, and it's also data and algorithms. A handful of fancy patents on basic smartphone functionality will be no match against hardcore algorithm development and data management. Google maps is astonishingly good. The data is accurate, and it always maximizes the amount of information at any zoom level. The depth of quality isn't about features, it's about mastery of a complex dataset. It's not just maps. Google Now vs Siri. Ask yourself which will evolve faster? Where will these products be in 2 years? 5 years? I predict an increasing gap. Google has deep experience developing algorithms and managing data. Apple will have trouble matching this. I love Apple. I used to work there. But they need to wake up a little.
- taligent 14y ago
  Google is good when it comes to managing the map data but it is hardly unique. Many data providers have been doing exactly what Google has for far longer. And I don't see there being an increasing gap going forward. There simply isn't an unmanageably high turnover of street names/locations in most cities. And Yelp already handles turnover of POI data quite well.
  - paulsutter 14y ago
    Maps need to be deeply integrated with other services, as in Google Now. This deep integration goes well beyond what map providers do. And this is where you'll see an increasing gap. I'm in Tokyo right now, and I use my Google maps constantly, but I can imagine how much easier they could make it. I can already read Japanese web pages via Google translate, soon I'm sure the integration will be even better so I dont need to copy and paste addresses between. And Google Now would integrate all that with my calendar and contacts in my address book. If you've ever tried to read Japanese or interpret Tokyo addresses before Google's products, you'd understand the breakthrough here. The needs are way beyond a map dataset. And we'll see how easy it is for Apple to just go out and license a few of those existing datasets you mention to get a product a deep as Google's. EDIT: Integration is what -I'M- talking about because that will make the long term difference in a successful mobile product. Which is the real underlying question. And I dont see how Yelp's data can help me navigate Shibuya station (missing from Apple maps, very detailed on Google maps. Good thing as I got lost within the station a few days ago).
taligent 14y ago
Sorry but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The problem IS the data. Apple has four problems: (1) inaccurate street data coming from TomTom, (2) missing data for parks/green/open spaces, (3) missing internal data e.g. shopping centres, campuses and (4) missing POI data from Yelp. The key difference between Google and Apple is that Google has initiated partnerships with key data providers in each country e.g. Whereis in Australia whilst Apple is relying mainly on two: TomTom and Yelp.
MrScruff 14y ago
Surely the problem could be solved by recruiting people with the relevant experience any talent, ie. throwing money at it?
timfrietas 14y ago
Spotlight is an excellent search product in my view.

Bud 14y ago

1. You were searching for an airport, left out the word "airport", which is the most important word, and it's Apple's fault? 2. I just went into Maps and searched for "San Francisco International". There were two hits, and the second hit was the airport. The other hit was for a business in SF with "International" as the first word in its name. These do not seem like completely awful search results to me. 3. Why are you assuming (and yes, it's a complete assumption which is free of evidence) that "Apple partisans want to believe" (you can read minds now too?) that it's only a data problem? I'm an Apple partisan, and I worked on the Maps team, specifically on quality of search results. I can tell you that what I believe is that it is both a problem of needing to refine the database, and also a problem of needing to continue to improve the search capability. Does this change your assumptions?

joeyo 14y ago
> 1. You were searching for an airport, left out the word > "airport", which is the most important word, and it's > Apple's fault? Yes, it is Apple's fault, in a sense, because the customer is always right. Moreover, a competitor (Google) is able to connect the dots and return the right results. I just searched that same phrase on Android and it gave me directions to the airport in question, along with a phone number and other useful information. Whether it is able achieve that feat because it knows that I have been to SFO within the last month, or knows that I have emails in my inbox that pertain to the airport, or because more users click through to SFO than other hits for that search phrase or because they use black magic is beside the point: Google's search results are simply better.
- guywithabike 14y ago
  Why not just search for "sfo" or "airport", both of which return the airport correctly on iOS 6's maps? Typing out "san francisco international" and leaving out "airport" seems incredibly contrived.
  - zmmz 14y ago
    No, it isn't. When most people refer to a place, they refer to it by it's common name. You fly to JFK, Heathrow, Charles de Gaule, Gatwick, Luton, O'Hare, etc. There is no need to add "airport" to something which so obviously is one in the context. The familiarity of common names is why wikipedia uses them for article names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common...
    - Bud 14y ago
      You're missing something obvious, which is that out of all the airports you listed, NONE of them is named after the city it's in or near. SFO, of course, is. Which makes this particular search MUCH more ambiguous unless you include the word "airport".
  - reddit_clone 14y ago
    The answer to the problem of not coming up with the right answer for a perfectly reasonable query is 'Change your query'? Apple apologists are actually making Apple lazy and entitled. Any sub standard stuff needs to be pointed out. Not hand-waved away.
  - untog 14y ago
    Why should I have to? Google knows exactly what I'm asking for when I enter any of those terms, Apple does not. That is a deficiency on Apple's part, I shouldn't have to change my behaviour.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Imagine how much better Google results would be if, instead of returning what you wanted, they told you off for not typing an easier to find query.
billjings 14y ago
1. I can't make you see the problem if you don't want to see it. The phrase "San Francisco International" is conversationally unambiguous. 2. I'm no longer in the area, but at the time I made the search I got something like 5-10 results, none of which was clearly the airport. 3. That's my explanation for why nobody is talking about what I feel is the giant elephant sitting in the corner. Maybe I'm wrong. If Apple partisans actually think that the search is fine, that might be a better explanation.

josephlord 14y ago

Search could be better. The POI information is pretty inaccurate in places and just sparse in others but the address information is pretty good. By the way couldn't you just have searched for SFO? That works even when looking at another part of the world. And it is much less typing.

paulsutter 14y ago

You're right, and it's also data and algorithms. A handful of fancy patents on basic smartphone functionality will be no match against hardcore algorithm development and data management. Google maps is astonishingly good. The data is accurate, and it always maximizes the amount of information at any zoom level. The depth of quality isn't about features, it's about mastery of a complex dataset. It's not just maps. Google Now vs Siri. Ask yourself which will evolve faster? Where will these products be in 2 years? 5 years? I predict an increasing gap. Google has deep experience developing algorithms and managing data. Apple will have trouble matching this. I love Apple. I used to work there. But they need to wake up a little.

taligent 14y ago
Google is good when it comes to managing the map data but it is hardly unique. Many data providers have been doing exactly what Google has for far longer. And I don't see there being an increasing gap going forward. There simply isn't an unmanageably high turnover of street names/locations in most cities. And Yelp already handles turnover of POI data quite well.
- paulsutter 14y ago
  Maps need to be deeply integrated with other services, as in Google Now. This deep integration goes well beyond what map providers do. And this is where you'll see an increasing gap. I'm in Tokyo right now, and I use my Google maps constantly, but I can imagine how much easier they could make it. I can already read Japanese web pages via Google translate, soon I'm sure the integration will be even better so I dont need to copy and paste addresses between. And Google Now would integrate all that with my calendar and contacts in my address book. If you've ever tried to read Japanese or interpret Tokyo addresses before Google's products, you'd understand the breakthrough here. The needs are way beyond a map dataset. And we'll see how easy it is for Apple to just go out and license a few of those existing datasets you mention to get a product a deep as Google's. EDIT: Integration is what -I'M- talking about because that will make the long term difference in a successful mobile product. Which is the real underlying question. And I dont see how Yelp's data can help me navigate Shibuya station (missing from Apple maps, very detailed on Google maps. Good thing as I got lost within the station a few days ago).

taligent 14y ago

Sorry but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The problem IS the data. Apple has four problems: (1) inaccurate street data coming from TomTom, (2) missing data for parks/green/open spaces, (3) missing internal data e.g. shopping centres, campuses and (4) missing POI data from Yelp. The key difference between Google and Apple is that Google has initiated partnerships with key data providers in each country e.g. Whereis in Australia whilst Apple is relying mainly on two: TomTom and Yelp.

MrScruff 14y ago

Surely the problem could be solved by recruiting people with the relevant experience any talent, ie. throwing money at it?

timfrietas 14y ago

Spotlight is an excellent search product in my view.