I want to see more of that and less of the anecdotes. I’m under no illusion that this is any sort of conclusive test, but it’s a start. (This, for example, doesn’t test for POIs or more complicated and fuzzy search queries, which for me – anecdote alarm! – are the huge issue and both often unusable – while all the rest works like a charm for me, except for some small gripes I have with how maps are displayed.)
If someone says "tl;dr", I assume they mean "it was too long; I didn't read it." If you want to provide a summary, then perhaps just call it that. (Although I think your summary mischaracterizes an actual test.)
the way snogglethorpe used "tl;dr" is fine and pretty generally understood. can we stop arguing semantics of an internet acronym? regardless of your admitted assumption, their intent was explained, let's move on now.
I find it interesting that the linked article is substantiative and provides data and thought-out conclusions derived from the data, whereas you replied with a snarky 3 word response. That's much of Hacker News in a nutshell.
"Google has discovered that an incorrect result is better than no result at all when it comes to keeping people on their Websites and continue to generate ad revenue."
Big eyeroll here. Returning a probabilistic match is a nefarious plot for revenue. OK...
Also the author missed the point of clicks, subsequent searches and back buttons/bounces: Google sees all of these as data to be mined. So while the Apple engineer is worried about returning the wrong result supposedly (yet they return tons of wrong ones anyway), the Google engineer is saying "we are mostly confident on these ones, lets put them out there and see which ones cause the users to bounce or search again and which ones terminate at that point and then we can upgrade their scores".
The biggest issue here in NZ seems to be that the POI data is horrible. I'm in Auckland, the largest city in NZ, and searched for Britomart, the main transport hub with a large train and bus station, and Apple maps had no results.
That may be an anecdote, but that single data point is enough to make Apple maps utterly useless for Auckland.
Also, I don't agree with the assertion that Apple maps won't return far-fetched results. I searched for "PB Tech", a technology shop chain, and it took me to Mexico.
Apple relies a lot on Yelp for POI data which obviously isn't in NZ right now.
But I believe they will be there soon as they just launched in Australia and bought the NZ domain name. Yelp's strategy has been to partner with the local YellowPages equivalent.
So what you will see is a jump from bad data now to almost perfect data overnight.
Ha. Yelp just bought a .co.nz domain name, therefore we're going to see an increase in data quality overnight? I admire your optimism. Why wasn't this present at launch?
If the author only limited the "success" category to a 1KM radius, that is awfully narrow for the search for an entire city name. If we say anywhere within 10KM (6 miles) is success, I wonder if iOS5 blows iOS6 out of the water even more.
I don't believe these results are an accurate representation of the Google Maps geocoder or map data. And it's absolutely not the case that an incorrect result is considered better than no result.
I spot-checked on the Google API a few entries that the spreadsheet showed in the wrong country (Waldemar, Coldstream, Osceola, Snow Road Station, Belgrave, Winger, Heidelberg, Priceville, Vernon, Blackwater). I only got one result that was wrong (Vernon) with the default settings. With a country bias to Canada, which I hope would have been there for an API user from that country, that one is resolved to a sensible looking locality as well.
There clearly are some queries in that set for which Google returns the wrong answer, but I'd be the frequency of those problems is an order of magnitude lower than this post suggests. It'd be interesting to know what the reason for this discrepancy is, but without seeing the exact queries on the wire one can only speculate.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Google Maps != Google Now. So your use case is cool and may well be the future but that isn't what we are talking about here. My point is that street/POI data does not have a high turnover so the gap between Apple and Google will get closer not wider.
The interesting question is whether Apple is even going to bother to license data. They could well rely on Yelp's geo expansion to do the work for them. God knows what will happen if Yelp goes out of business though.
In the areas of Europe where I live, Apple Maps doesn't know most of the POIs I search for – and if there's a result, it's often wrong.
Examples from last week:
- I stayed at the Radisson Blu Alcron hotel in Prague. Searching for 'radisson blu prag' (in German) with Google Maps immediately lead to a correct result. Apple Maps delivers no result. Using 'Prague' instead of 'Prag' didn't help either.
- I had an appointed at Skyguide's Zurich HQ (Skyguide is the Swiss air navigation service provider). Google Maps again showed the correct location while Apple Maps showed for some reason only results named 'Skyline'.
- I often used Google Maps for public transport routing. Apple Maps of course does not support this feature.
- On Apple Maps, the street I live on goes through my house. In Google Maps, it's where it's supposed to be, i.e., in front of my house.
- I went hiking in the mountains last weekend and the quality of Apple Maps' aerial and satellite images was simply awful in comparison to Google Maps.
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.
I think that @billjings hit it on the money. What this means is that if apple is capable or even able to catch up to a company like google when doing a location search, they may have a true search engine on their hands. Google makes quick / easy work of navigation because their search is context-aware (geo/account) and will help narrow the search down with a great deal of intelligence. Take for instance the new google search in JB android. This relates to maps because it's ability to acquire fuzzy data to provide you with accurate results. Apple is not going to catch up to google anytime soon on making "search" better or even close to the accuracy of google due to the infrastructure & algorithm constraints. Apple as big and cool their products are, I can almost garantee they don't have the brainpower that google does behind their largest most important products. Google products take Computer Science to a new level.
"Had Apple set the public’s expectations better, we may be having a very different discussion at this point."
This, for me, captures exactly why Apple deserve the backlash they've seen from this whole Maps thing (and why Tim Cook's apology was much needed). Their special events are always filled with the same bullshit: 'Amazing'. 'Magical'. 'Incredible'. 'Unbelievable'. Ok, Apple have very talented people working on their products, and they're extremely proud of what they do (they should be), so I get that they can't help but roll out the same marketing spin for everything they release.
This of course backfires when we get these products in our hands and they're not everything we expected them to be. The biggest change that needs to happen at Apple now is that they need to breed humility into their culture, and show it more in public.
The last hint of humility I saw from them in recent years was the word 'beta' slapped onto Siri at its original announcement, and yet Forstall still put on a flawless presentation that showed Siri as far more capable and responsive than it's been in the wild.
The most recent of course, was Tim Cook's Maps apology. Steve Jobs would never have written that letter, and I'm glad that there is now someone running Apple that knows when an apology is due, especially one that recommends alternative products in the meantime, rather than shovelling shit on them in an Antennagate-style "we suck, but look, everyone else sucks more, na na na na na".
It takes a certain kind of person to get a company like Apple to the top. It takes an entirely different kind of person to keep them there. I can only hope that this is first step in Apple forging a more honest, humble, real relationship with it's consumers, because in time that will be the only thing that can secure their future.
This experiment is flawed. iOS 5's forward/reverse geocoders are using Apple's servers, just like iOS 6.
The only way to use Google's forward geocoder data is to make a REST request with your own API key using NSURLConnection yourself.
In iOS 4.x you can use MKReverseGeocoder which would return results from Google, but this class was rewritten in iOS 5 to be a thin layer on top of CLReverseGeocoder (using Apple's servers).
I think a good summary of the situation is that Apple attempted to out-Google Google. Microsoft has tried that in the past, just as they've tried to out-Apple Apple.
It's bound to fail.
What's interesting about this is that it beyond a doubt confirms that Apple is now playing catch up to Google (and Android).
I'm honestly getting tired of this debate. I haven't mentioned anything until now, but the new maps is incredible. I saw FIRST hand how it worked. I can't speak for someone living in the boonies but, I ordered my iphone 5 online, and had to pick it up an hour away in Miami beach.
My iphone 4 had google maps on it as I drove to Miami beach, I actually missed my turn twice and I am not a bad driver, it's just that you need to merge very quickly in one particular spot twice (basically stay left or stay right). Google maps wasn't keeping up and even after using maps for a year or more or three, it still happened. It just was unfamiliar and the app didn't provide any additional help other than trying to flip through the directions very fast while driving which isn't safe as it is.
I finally got there, got my iphone 5 and was BLOWN AWAY at the maps app. At first I was annoyed coming out of the parking garage because I thought "you cant skip forward ahead in the directions??". It must be what everyone is annoyed at. Suddenly, I pulled out of the garage and magically it has 3d view, which rotates as you drive, and talks to you. It was an INCREDIBLE comparison because not 45 mins before I was missing turns, and on my way out of miami i could see every turn PERFECTLY, and not only that I didnt have to hold my phone not keeping my eyes on the road.
I understand the data/search is what most people are referring to but the point above is massive. It blows google maps away x10000. I played with the GPS the entire way home, especially the part where you go around the cloverleaf loops on the highway merge junctions, and watching the maps follow around with it.
As far as search, I have tried searching 'sushi' while somewhat zoomed in. whereas google would search a given radius if it had low results, apple maps stays with the low results unless you manually zoom out.
I have also seen it be somewhat picky if you don't specify a road correctly (in the jungle where my parents live it didn't recognize "CR" as county road, so I typed that manually). These problems are hardly more than just an annoyance, and the benefits far outweigh the gains imo
Honestly, if you are that blown away by turn by turn directions, then you've been held back by Apple for the last few years. Android has had it, Windows Phone had it, and numerous third party apps on iOS provided it.
None of this blows away Google Maps. It blows away Apple's implementation of Google Maps, which was subpar. So, now Apple's implementation is on par with everyone else, but with subpar data.
I'm aware of plenty of other phones having this. The thing is android seems to accept all their user feedback or something and their phone ends up looking and running like a cobbled together piece of garbage, seriously I try out the BEST droid phone when it comes out and its laggy where I can't even use it.. kind of ridiculous. Things aren't organized well, etc.
Any time my friend hands me his droid phone to text while hes driving its just a mess.
I'll stick with iphone. Theres a reason it takes features longer to get there I think, its because they actually need to really make sure they 'fit in' in really smooth cohesive way. if they just accepted every single suggestion or feedback from customers it would be just as cluttered as droid
My iOS6 maps experience comes down to the new Maps has a far better UI but sucks at figuring out where you want to go unless you provide the street address.
(It's not like the old Maps app was flawless. It's just that it usually worked and the new one usually doesn't. I'm in greater Washington DC, I'm sure your mileage will vary.)
The same can be said for Waze -- I often would convert a descriptive location (such as "San Francisco International" per another post) to a street address then copy and paste it into Waze. I use the conditional tense because I consider the new iOS Maps app to be superior to Waze for navigation, once you've found an address.
It seems to me Apple could easily cut a deal with a third-party-search-engine-that-isn't-Google to improve this simple flaw.
49 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadI want to see more of that and less of the anecdotes. I’m under no illusion that this is any sort of conclusive test, but it’s a start. (This, for example, doesn’t test for POIs or more complicated and fuzzy search queries, which for me – anecdote alarm! – are the huge issue and both often unusable – while all the rest works like a charm for me, except for some small gripes I have with how maps are displayed.)
"tl;dr" is to save other people the effort.
This would be correct, however 'tl;dr: <summary>' is pretty common for providing a summary.
Big eyeroll here. Returning a probabilistic match is a nefarious plot for revenue. OK...
That may be an anecdote, but that single data point is enough to make Apple maps utterly useless for Auckland.
Also, I don't agree with the assertion that Apple maps won't return far-fetched results. I searched for "PB Tech", a technology shop chain, and it took me to Mexico.
But I believe they will be there soon as they just launched in Australia and bought the NZ domain name. Yelp's strategy has been to partner with the local YellowPages equivalent.
So what you will see is a jump from bad data now to almost perfect data overnight.
I spot-checked on the Google API a few entries that the spreadsheet showed in the wrong country (Waldemar, Coldstream, Osceola, Snow Road Station, Belgrave, Winger, Heidelberg, Priceville, Vernon, Blackwater). I only got one result that was wrong (Vernon) with the default settings. With a country bias to Canada, which I hope would have been there for an API user from that country, that one is resolved to a sensible looking locality as well.
There clearly are some queries in that set for which Google returns the wrong answer, but I'd be the frequency of those problems is an order of magnitude lower than this post suggests. It'd be interesting to know what the reason for this discrepancy is, but without seeing the exact queries on the wire one can only speculate.
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.
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?
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.
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...
SFO, of course, is. Which makes this particular search MUCH more ambiguous unless you include the word "airport".
Apple apologists are actually making Apple lazy and entitled. Any sub standard stuff needs to be pointed out. Not hand-waved away.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The interesting question is whether Apple is even going to bother to license data. They could well rely on Yelp's geo expansion to do the work for them. God knows what will happen if Yelp goes out of business though.
Examples from last week:
- I stayed at the Radisson Blu Alcron hotel in Prague. Searching for 'radisson blu prag' (in German) with Google Maps immediately lead to a correct result. Apple Maps delivers no result. Using 'Prague' instead of 'Prag' didn't help either.
- I had an appointed at Skyguide's Zurich HQ (Skyguide is the Swiss air navigation service provider). Google Maps again showed the correct location while Apple Maps showed for some reason only results named 'Skyline'.
- I often used Google Maps for public transport routing. Apple Maps of course does not support this feature.
- On Apple Maps, the street I live on goes through my house. In Google Maps, it's where it's supposed to be, i.e., in front of my house.
- I went hiking in the mountains last weekend and the quality of Apple Maps' aerial and satellite images was simply awful in comparison to Google Maps.
- Etc.
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.
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.
This, for me, captures exactly why Apple deserve the backlash they've seen from this whole Maps thing (and why Tim Cook's apology was much needed). Their special events are always filled with the same bullshit: 'Amazing'. 'Magical'. 'Incredible'. 'Unbelievable'. Ok, Apple have very talented people working on their products, and they're extremely proud of what they do (they should be), so I get that they can't help but roll out the same marketing spin for everything they release.
This of course backfires when we get these products in our hands and they're not everything we expected them to be. The biggest change that needs to happen at Apple now is that they need to breed humility into their culture, and show it more in public.
The last hint of humility I saw from them in recent years was the word 'beta' slapped onto Siri at its original announcement, and yet Forstall still put on a flawless presentation that showed Siri as far more capable and responsive than it's been in the wild.
The most recent of course, was Tim Cook's Maps apology. Steve Jobs would never have written that letter, and I'm glad that there is now someone running Apple that knows when an apology is due, especially one that recommends alternative products in the meantime, rather than shovelling shit on them in an Antennagate-style "we suck, but look, everyone else sucks more, na na na na na".
It takes a certain kind of person to get a company like Apple to the top. It takes an entirely different kind of person to keep them there. I can only hope that this is first step in Apple forging a more honest, humble, real relationship with it's consumers, because in time that will be the only thing that can secure their future.
The only way to use Google's forward geocoder data is to make a REST request with your own API key using NSURLConnection yourself.
In iOS 4.x you can use MKReverseGeocoder which would return results from Google, but this class was rewritten in iOS 5 to be a thin layer on top of CLReverseGeocoder (using Apple's servers).
It's bound to fail.
What's interesting about this is that it beyond a doubt confirms that Apple is now playing catch up to Google (and Android).
My iphone 4 had google maps on it as I drove to Miami beach, I actually missed my turn twice and I am not a bad driver, it's just that you need to merge very quickly in one particular spot twice (basically stay left or stay right). Google maps wasn't keeping up and even after using maps for a year or more or three, it still happened. It just was unfamiliar and the app didn't provide any additional help other than trying to flip through the directions very fast while driving which isn't safe as it is.
I finally got there, got my iphone 5 and was BLOWN AWAY at the maps app. At first I was annoyed coming out of the parking garage because I thought "you cant skip forward ahead in the directions??". It must be what everyone is annoyed at. Suddenly, I pulled out of the garage and magically it has 3d view, which rotates as you drive, and talks to you. It was an INCREDIBLE comparison because not 45 mins before I was missing turns, and on my way out of miami i could see every turn PERFECTLY, and not only that I didnt have to hold my phone not keeping my eyes on the road.
I understand the data/search is what most people are referring to but the point above is massive. It blows google maps away x10000. I played with the GPS the entire way home, especially the part where you go around the cloverleaf loops on the highway merge junctions, and watching the maps follow around with it.
As far as search, I have tried searching 'sushi' while somewhat zoomed in. whereas google would search a given radius if it had low results, apple maps stays with the low results unless you manually zoom out.
I have also seen it be somewhat picky if you don't specify a road correctly (in the jungle where my parents live it didn't recognize "CR" as county road, so I typed that manually). These problems are hardly more than just an annoyance, and the benefits far outweigh the gains imo
None of this blows away Google Maps. It blows away Apple's implementation of Google Maps, which was subpar. So, now Apple's implementation is on par with everyone else, but with subpar data.
Any time my friend hands me his droid phone to text while hes driving its just a mess.
I'll stick with iphone. Theres a reason it takes features longer to get there I think, its because they actually need to really make sure they 'fit in' in really smooth cohesive way. if they just accepted every single suggestion or feedback from customers it would be just as cluttered as droid
(It's not like the old Maps app was flawless. It's just that it usually worked and the new one usually doesn't. I'm in greater Washington DC, I'm sure your mileage will vary.)
The same can be said for Waze -- I often would convert a descriptive location (such as "San Francisco International" per another post) to a street address then copy and paste it into Waze. I use the conditional tense because I consider the new iOS Maps app to be superior to Waze for navigation, once you've found an address.
It seems to me Apple could easily cut a deal with a third-party-search-engine-that-isn't-Google to improve this simple flaw.
http://loewald.com/blog/?p=4918