4 ms·

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

by 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
    That's a really smooth move there, calling me stupid under the guise of calling me smart. I like it! I'll have to remember that. My experience with Apple Maps was that it steered me wrong more than it steered me right. That made it literally worse than nothing. If you think that implies that I don't have a serious opinion, well, I can't affect what you think. I honestly don't see why you need anything beyond "they should have gone with anyone, anyone besides TomTom, who has the worst maps in the industry". It would have required some sort of compromise on their part? Well duh. Obviously they went with TomTom because TomTom's position at the bottom of the heap gave Apple lots of power. Apple clearly prioritized power in the relationship over quality of the resulting product. That's their right. But that doesn't make the resulting product better.
    - gress 13y ago
      I'm not calling you stupid. I'm accusing you of not using your intelligence at a point when to do so would invalidate part of your argument I agree with you that Apple prioritized power over the near-term quality of the resulting product. That was the point I made in the first place. In order to be able to make maps better at their own pace, they must have control over it otherwise they would just be held hostage again. The alternative is not compromise; it's defeat. This is why simply presenting a list of other vendors doesn't change the equation. Control is a hard technical requirement.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Then I honestly haven't the slightest idea what point you're trying to make. You seem to be basically saying, Apple Maps sucks but it's OK because Apple decided that was the best way to proceed. Which is obvious (why would they have proceeded in a way that they didn't think was the best?) and thus completely uninteresting.
        gress 13y ago
        No. I am not saying anything like that trivial straw man which is intentionally uninteresting because you wrote it that way. I'm saying that a short term reduction in performance was necessary in order for Apple to obtain the control they need to make maps better in future rather than being hamstrung by this key service being owned by a competitor.

by gress 13y ago

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
  That's a really smooth move there, calling me stupid under the guise of calling me smart. I like it! I'll have to remember that. My experience with Apple Maps was that it steered me wrong more than it steered me right. That made it literally worse than nothing. If you think that implies that I don't have a serious opinion, well, I can't affect what you think. I honestly don't see why you need anything beyond "they should have gone with anyone, anyone besides TomTom, who has the worst maps in the industry". It would have required some sort of compromise on their part? Well duh. Obviously they went with TomTom because TomTom's position at the bottom of the heap gave Apple lots of power. Apple clearly prioritized power in the relationship over quality of the resulting product. That's their right. But that doesn't make the resulting product better.
  - gress 13y ago
    I'm not calling you stupid. I'm accusing you of not using your intelligence at a point when to do so would invalidate part of your argument I agree with you that Apple prioritized power over the near-term quality of the resulting product. That was the point I made in the first place. In order to be able to make maps better at their own pace, they must have control over it otherwise they would just be held hostage again. The alternative is not compromise; it's defeat. This is why simply presenting a list of other vendors doesn't change the equation. Control is a hard technical requirement.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Then I honestly haven't the slightest idea what point you're trying to make. You seem to be basically saying, Apple Maps sucks but it's OK because Apple decided that was the best way to proceed. Which is obvious (why would they have proceeded in a way that they didn't think was the best?) and thus completely uninteresting.
      - gress 13y ago
        No. I am not saying anything like that trivial straw man which is intentionally uninteresting because you wrote it that way. I'm saying that a short term reduction in performance was necessary in order for Apple to obtain the control they need to make maps better in future rather than being hamstrung by this key service being owned by a competitor.