3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThen 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 agoNo. 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.