3 ms·

whilst it's true that Apple maps is not as good as Google maps yet, especially outside the US, it strikes me as the odd one out here. Apple wanted to make maps

by gress 13y ago

whilst it's true that Apple maps is not as good as Google maps yet, especially outside the US, it strikes me as the odd one out here. Apple wanted to make maps better but couldn't do so with Google as the supplier without making unacceptable privacy compromises. The current state is temporarily worse, but only because their supplier was uncooperative.

Steko 13y ago
Yeah, that part is a misdiagnosis. Amazon and Google (and I guess Samsung and Facebook) all seem to want the full (Gates era) Microsoft. Conversely Apple certainly never wanted to be in the maps business but when their maps partner became their biggest competitor they didn't have a lot of other great options.
mikeash 13y ago
There's more than two maps suppliers out there. While it's true that Apple probably couldn't realistically proceed with Google, nothing forced Apple to partner with the cheapest and worst one out there (TomTom) when making the switch. Apple Maps could have been much better if Apple had cared to make it so. They didn't, and that's on them, not anyone else.
- gress 13y ago
  Who exactly are you suggesting they should have partnered with, and what do you know about what those other partners would have demanded in return? Seriously, if it's so easy for you to righteously deride them, you presumably have some credible suggestions about how they could make it better if only they wanted to.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    OpenStreetMap, Nokia, Microsoft, MapQuest, off the top of my head. Frankly, the claim that Apple Maps was the best possible mapping product Apple could have made requires far more support than the claim that Apple could have done better.
    - gress 13y ago
      Which of those are you claiming are better than Apple's maps? Only Microsoft and Nokia seem like they might be contenders, and given that at the time they were just as competitive towards Apple as Google, what makes you think they offered a more credible deal? The claim that Apple could have done better absolutely requires qualification otherwise it's just more empty bashing. Without qualification it is a claim that can be made against anyone about anything. Knowing that someone could have done better requires understanding the options available to them.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Apple trusts Microsoft enough to run a bunch of their infrastructure on Azure. I don't see why their maps couldn't be trusted too. OSM is also good. Better than what Apple got, anyway. Of course, my experience was that a blank sheet of paper would be better than Apple Maps when it was introduced. While a blank sheet of paper contains no information, it also won't steer you wrong, and that means it comes out ahead. What kind of qualification are you looking for?
        gress 13y ago
        Azure is a standard service offering and is a commodity that competes with AWS which Apple also uses. Given your general intelligence, it's actually hard for me to believe that you can't see that Microsoft would have leverage when negotiating to be the replacement for Google maps, and the terms might have been unacceptable. It's also quite reasonable that having been dependent on one hostile supplier for maps, Apple would need want to control it's own destiny with the replacement otherwise it would just be repeating the same mistake that they made with Google. Your comments about the blank sheet of paper make it unclear that you are offering a serious opinion here. I was looking for some actual insight or information about how Apple could have made maps better, but it doesn't seem like you have any to support your claim. It sounds like it just boils down to 'I wish they'd used OSM'.
        mikeash 13y ago
gress 13y ago
Why the downvotes other than blatant partisanship? This comment doesn't dispute the idea that Apple maps is worse, and it's well documented that Google and Apple couldn't come to terms.

by gress 13y ago

Steko 13y ago

Yeah, that part is a misdiagnosis. Amazon and Google (and I guess Samsung and Facebook) all seem to want the full (Gates era) Microsoft. Conversely Apple certainly never wanted to be in the maps business but when their maps partner became their biggest competitor they didn't have a lot of other great options.

mikeash 13y ago

There's more than two maps suppliers out there. While it's true that Apple probably couldn't realistically proceed with Google, nothing forced Apple to partner with the cheapest and worst one out there (TomTom) when making the switch. Apple Maps could have been much better if Apple had cared to make it so. They didn't, and that's on them, not anyone else.

gress 13y ago
Who exactly are you suggesting they should have partnered with, and what do you know about what those other partners would have demanded in return? Seriously, if it's so easy for you to righteously deride them, you presumably have some credible suggestions about how they could make it better if only they wanted to.
- mikeash 13y ago
  OpenStreetMap, Nokia, Microsoft, MapQuest, off the top of my head. Frankly, the claim that Apple Maps was the best possible mapping product Apple could have made requires far more support than the claim that Apple could have done better.
  - gress 13y ago
    Which of those are you claiming are better than Apple's maps? Only Microsoft and Nokia seem like they might be contenders, and given that at the time they were just as competitive towards Apple as Google, what makes you think they offered a more credible deal? The claim that Apple could have done better absolutely requires qualification otherwise it's just more empty bashing. Without qualification it is a claim that can be made against anyone about anything. Knowing that someone could have done better requires understanding the options available to them.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Apple trusts Microsoft enough to run a bunch of their infrastructure on Azure. I don't see why their maps couldn't be trusted too. OSM is also good. Better than what Apple got, anyway. Of course, my experience was that a blank sheet of paper would be better than Apple Maps when it was introduced. While a blank sheet of paper contains no information, it also won't steer you wrong, and that means it comes out ahead. What kind of qualification are you looking for?
      - gress 13y ago
        Azure is a standard service offering and is a commodity that competes with AWS which Apple also uses. Given your general intelligence, it's actually hard for me to believe that you can't see that Microsoft would have leverage when negotiating to be the replacement for Google maps, and the terms might have been unacceptable. It's also quite reasonable that having been dependent on one hostile supplier for maps, Apple would need want to control it's own destiny with the replacement otherwise it would just be repeating the same mistake that they made with Google. Your comments about the blank sheet of paper make it unclear that you are offering a serious opinion here. I was looking for some actual insight or information about how Apple could have made maps better, but it doesn't seem like you have any to support your claim. It sounds like it just boils down to 'I wish they'd used OSM'.
        mikeash 13y ago

gress 13y ago

Why the downvotes other than blatant partisanship? This comment doesn't dispute the idea that Apple maps is worse, and it's well documented that Google and Apple couldn't come to terms.