I don't have an issue with signing in with my Google Creds because I get direct benefit. It saves all my searches, and can quickly pull up previous searches (unsure if the App does this already). and can auto fill the fields. When typing on a virtual keyboard (which cripples me compared to a slide out), things that allow me to reduce typing make me happy.
It does seem a little hypocritical when the entire iPhone requires you to sign in with an Apple account. You think they're not tracking search data in the Maps app?
How so? You can use the phone just fine without an Apple account - you just won't be able to download any apps. Bookmarks in Maps works without having to sign into anything.
Between this and the turn by turn introduced by Apple, it might have completely killed the turn by turn directions mobile app market on iOS. Even quality (as opposed to sub-par) are going to have a hard time competing against free.
Garmin and TomTom must be shitting themselves. I can't imagine how many people are just going to be using their smartphones in the next few years. Even built in nav consoles for the latest BMWs can't hold a candle to these apps.
And everything could have been avoided by Apple choosing to wait a few months (or, more realistically, by working with Google starting much earlier) to make sure a Google Maps app was on the market when iOS 6 was released.
We do know that Google started pushing ads into Maps API results in such a way that had nothing to do with any negotiations with Apple, unless they fucked everyone by intentionally cutting quality data to Apple users.
Google makes money off of us primarily by selling our data, in one way or another. Apple makes money off of us by selling us phones, primarily.
One of those companies (Apple) was dedicated to keeping the customer experience positive and found themselves with few options. The other (Google) took an action that harmed customers they shared with Apple, to hurt Apple.
I know who I want to keep doing business with, as Google begins to close the Android ecosystem and people tend to forget that a significant core portion of iOS is open-source, just like OSX. I doubt Android will continue to be much more open.
Your implication is that Google was surprised by what happened and so wasn't prepared with their own app. This strikes me as implausible. Apple's purchases of mapping companies was well publicized, as was it's slow break-up with Google. So if we're allocating blame for Google not being ready, I'm going to go ahead and lay that at Google's feet.
If we're talking about blame for Apple Maps being sub-par, obviously that's Apple's fault.
Leave it to Gruber to try to spin this pro-Apple: "This iOS 6 mapping saga has been a source of tremendous controversy, but here we are three months after iOS 6 was released and iPhone users now have a better Google Maps experience than they did when Google was providing the back-end data for the built-in Maps app. It all worked out."
Almost like Apple planned it that way is the implication.
Except the reality is that his last sentence should end ", no thanks to Apple".
"I consider Apple’s new Maps the better-designed app, but this new Google Maps is very good. And Google’s advantage in search accuracy goes without saying."
You can almost hear him gritting his teeth as he types this, not quite able to give up Apple just yet. "Apple wins (for me) in design, but everything else is Google. But I can't bring myself to explicitly say 'this is the better app'."
>Leave it to Gruber to try to spin this pro-Apple: "This iOS 6 mapping saga has been a source of tremendous controversy, but here we are three months after iOS 6 was released and iPhone users now have a better Google Maps experience than they did when Google was providing the back-end data for the built-in Maps app. It all worked out."
But it's true. In iOS 5 I had Google Maps but no vector tiles, no turn-by-turn or voice navigation, and Apple tried to get Google to work with them on that but (regardless of whose fault it was) negotiations failed. Now, here we are, and as an iPhone user I now have a Google Maps that not only has those features but is arguably, currently, better than the Android version(!)
Furthermore, there's now been an explosion of map apps on the app store: Nokia's Here, Waze, etc. Competition is good. In iOS 5, there weren't viable alternatives (or they weren't advertised?), but now I have four good map apps on my phone. And when one of them fails, and it will (even Google, which was useless for me when I visited Japan recently) I now have several alternatives. As a user, for me, it's a win win.
and Apple tried to get Google to work with them on that but (regardless of whose fault it was) negotiations failed
But that's then letting Apple off the hook. Obviously we don't know the details of the negotiation but the facts are that Apple left a deal on the table, and gave their users a significantly sub-par experience as a result. That blow has been considerably softened by Google releasing their own app, but treating "negotiations failed" as some sort of "it's no-one's fault" result is letting everyone involved get away with a negative result.
> But it's true. In iOS 5 I had Google Maps but no vector tiles, no turn-by-turn or voice navigation, and Apple tried to get Google to work with them on that but (regardless of whose fault it was) negotiations failed. Now, here we are, and as an iPhone user I now have a Google Maps that not only has those features but is arguably, currently, better than the Android version(!)
The lack of innovation was exclusively Apple's fault. They neglected to update its Google Maps powered app and decided to enter into war with Google at the detriment to Apple customers. If Steve Jobs hadn't gone nuclear on Google, the Maps debacle would never have happened.
> Furthermore, there's now been an explosion of map apps on the app store: Nokia's Here, Waze, etc. Competition is good. In iOS 5, there weren't viable alternatives (or they weren't advertised?), but now I have four good map apps on my phone. And when one of them fails, and it will (even Google, which was useless for me when I visited Japan recently) I now have several alternatives. As a user, for me, it's a win win.
Waze was released in 2009. Nokia's Here is new, but most of the others that are popular in the store have been around quite some time. They "exploded" because Apple shafted its user base, it wasn't because of innovation.
"The lack of innovation was exclusively Apple's fault. They neglected to update its Google Maps powered app and decided to enter into war with Google at the detriment to Apple customers. If Steve Jobs hadn't gone nuclear on Google, the Maps debacle would never have happened."
Actually, Eric Schmidt left the Apple Board and soured the relationship as soon as Android approached a real priority for Google, and Google's choice to revoke free Maps API access destroyed the iOS Maps user experience (I often was advertised restaurants when trying to find the location of a job interview, for instance).
Apple could not have launched a new iOS and phone with the existing Maps experience. They didn't shaft anyone.
FWIW, I still think Apple's Maps are better, it took me a couple weeks to decide to take the dive, but I've been happy with it, and neither Apple Maps or Google Maps offer cycling directions, which IMO is the only major advantage of Google's data set in my life.
> The lack of innovation was exclusively Apple's fault. They neglected to update its Google Maps powered app and decided to enter into war with Google at the detriment to Apple customers. If Steve Jobs hadn't gone nuclear on Google, the Maps debacle would never have happened.
From what body cavity have you pulled this?
At this point the calculus is pretty well understood. Apple's license covered bitmap tiles, traffic and transit routing.
Apple wanted turn-by-turn and vector maps.
Google wanted ads, prominent Google branding and way more user data.
Neither side would give ground. So they hit an impasse. That's it.
> Google wanted more prominent branding and way more user data.
So yes, Apple decided that it would drop Google. They were in a tough spot, hating Google with every breath but then relying on them for mapping, but it was a bed that they made.
Considering that the YouTube and Google Maps applications rocketed to the top of the store instantly, do you think Apple was concerned about its users or concerned about sticking it to Google? Apple's users want Google's applications, Apple does not want to cooperate with Google. It's that simple.
> They were in a tough spot, hating Google with every breath
I think it's more likely they hated the thought of an ad-heavy maps app that shuttled enormous volumes of their customer data to another party. Apple is an enormous company with significant value tied up in the success of their flagship product, the iPhone. "Hate" – or whatever emotions you're suggesting here – might occupy the minds of leadership, but they're going to make decisions based on what's best for the company. Clearly they thought an ad-heavy maps app was not best.
Out of curiosity where are you getting the "way more user data" part? The WSJ/AllThingsD article which all the blog stories were derived from and is as close to definitive as we're going to get put it this way:
"Sources tell AllThingsD that Google, for example, wanted more say in the iOS maps feature set. It wasn’t happy simply providing back-end data. It asked for in-app branding. Apple declined. It suggested adding Google Latitude. Again, Apple declined. And these became major points of contention between the two companies, whose relationship was already deteriorating for a variety of other reasons, including Apple’s concern that Google was gathering too much user data from the app."
> Except the reality is that his last sentence should end ", no thanks to Apple".
Maybe Apple should have taken more time to make the transition. But the result is Apple is the master of its own destiny, Google is the master of its own destiny and it seems to work out for the better right now. Both apps have features the formerly co-owned app had not. Long term it's healthier I think.
Also note that everyone who has complained about Apple Maps either purchased an iPhone 5 essentially on release day, making them an early adopter (the 4 and 4S are still for sale) or is an early adopter by way of voluntarily upgrading.
Let's not overdramatize. And the iOS Maps experience based on Google's data was really terrible while iOS 6 was in development and when it was released.
There's also nothing wrong with Apple Maps that wasn't wrong with Google Maps literally years after it was launched.
"Except the reality is that his last sentence should end ", no thanks to Apple"."
If Apple doesn't build it's own Maps, we still have the old shittier maps app though right?
Gruber in May:
"This is a high-pressure switch for Apple. Regressions will not be acceptable. The purported whiz-bang 3D view stuff might be great, but users are going to have pitchforks and torches in hand if practical stuff like driving and walking directions are less accurate than they were with Google’s data."
Can you almost hear him grit his teeth while he ... accurately predicts the mapping fiasco before the beta had even been released?
No, you still can't easily highlight-open / link addresses to open in Google Maps, for example. Among other things, Apple is responsible for the old, shitty map, and they are responsible for not getting Google more native integration and having NIH syndrome. Plainly, "thanks to Apple," iOS6 Maps is a failure, and it is a huge misstep for one of (of two) the world's flagship mobile-OS.
> you still can't easily highlight-open / link addresses to open in Google Maps
And this is thanks to Apple's own my-way-or-the-highway design decisions with iOS. It's amazing how people still put up with not being able to change default application settings in iOS. Then again, that goes to show you how strong the RDF still is. Apple fanbois like Steko continue to come out of the woodwork any time Apple gets criticized, ready to defend them no matter what decision they've made.
"Apple fanbois like Steko continue to come out of the woodwork any time Apple gets criticized, ready to defend them no matter what decision they've made."
Me in this thread, 30 min before your post:
"This can only bring more and more focus onto iOS's most glaring weakness: the lack of contracts/intents/services. If the next version of iOS doesn't have it I think you will see jailbreaking go mainstream."
You only reinforced your reputation with that post. You made it clear that you think that people's response to Apple not fixing iOS's "most glaring weakness" will be to jailbreak, and not to leave iOS for greener pastures. Tell me again, what's the difference between Gruber's biased rhetoric and your own?
"You only reinforced your reputation with that post."
Because nothing says "Apple fanboi" like unprompted criticism of iOS. Spoilers: internet checkmate.
"You made it clear that you think that people's response to Apple not fixing iOS's "most glaring weakness" will be to jailbreak, and not to leave iOS for greener pastures."
I did not "make that clear", I gave one result which I think will be common. Some people will certainly leave too, and I could well be one of them (cmon Nexus 7 LTE) but you give up more of whatever you like about the platform by leaving than by jailbreaking so you'd have to value intents and contracts somewhat more.
Despite you repeatedly calling me a "fanboi" I have no special loyalty to Apple. Before I got my 4S almost a year ago I gave my wife my 3GS and used her shitty sony-ericson flip phone for 6 months and I was fine with that. I used Macs in college and despite liking them and abhoring Microsoft at that time the last 5 machines I've bought have all been PCs which I've been very satisfied with. If I was going to buy a new desktop today it would certainly be a pc. A new laptop? I suspect an ultrabook but it might be a retina MBP. In the same way I like the iphone but I don't stand in line on release day nor do I buy every one nor do I expect to always buy iphones or even phones in the future. The iphones I've bought have always been because, when I went to buy phones, it was the best phone. Now reasonable people may disagree with that assessment but there's also no shortage of objective evidence that supports it.
"Tell me again, what's the difference between Gruber's biased rhetoric and your own?"
I'll answer right after you let us know, have you stopped beating your wife?
I dont know if there is a good way of saying this, but I would personally find such feedback useful and there are no private messages on HN so here it is:
I do remember your username as maybe the second most Apple-biased contributor on HN. Feel free to say the same about me and Google if that is what you think...
"No, you still can't easily highlight-open / link addresses to open in Google Maps, for example."
I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to find what this is replying to.
"Among other things, Apple is responsible for the old, shitty map"
Which was wildly lauded when it came out and later stagnated due to mutual differences.
"they are responsible for not getting Google more native integration"
Seems like there were two parties involved.
"and having NIH syndrome"
It's not at all hilarious to scold Apple for NIH syndrome when we're talking about Apple and Google.
"Plainly, "thanks to Apple," iOS6 Maps is a failure, and it is a huge misstep for one of (of two) the world's flagship mobile-OS."
Plainly, iOS6 maps are passable and in some ways were better than the old shitty maps powered by Google and today's Google's maps is better than both by a big margin.
You'll note I don't say this is "Thanks to Apple" here but the "Apple is responsible for everything bad and everything good that happens is no thanks to Apple" meme that has taken over this discussion is utterly ridiculous.
I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to find how Google is to blame for the shortcomings of pre-iOS6 maps. Google didn't develop it. Google didn't poorly integrate it with the OS. So yes, absolutely, "If Apple doesn't build it's own [new and still shitty] Maps, we still have the old shittier maps app[, thanks to Apple,] though right?" Even STILL, there is no integration point for Google -- anyone that has bested Apple's offering(s) -- to integrate with the user's device. Only one party can change this involvement, everyone else is waiting with baited breath.
Apple should absolutely be scolded for what they sold to their users. Maps are one of, if not the most, important feature of a smartphone. Can you return your phone over it? They failed. Google is offering their's for "free."
Google couldn't be persuaded (or allowed) to commit code to native iOS? They couldn't be bought? I fail to see how they had the option to power anything, when they are willing to offer a superior solution for FREE!
> If Apple doesn't build it's own Maps, we still have the old shittier maps app though right?
Apple was unwilling to negotiate with Google because they are upset over Android. Apple could certainly have improved its existing Maps app if they were willing to play ball with Google. They weren't and now they look even more ridiculous because every iOS user can plainly see that Apple is worse at mapping than Google.
"Apple was unwilling to negotiate with Google because they are upset over Android."
Alternatively we could use our pretend mind reading in the other direction and say that "Google was unwilling to negotiate with Apple because they had them over the barrel?"
Or we could realize that there are two parties in a negotiation and come to the conclusion both did what would be expected and in the end users will certainly benefit the most by having lots of competition in the mapping space.
"Apple could certainly have improved its existing Maps app if they were willing to play ball with Google. "
Which would have left them bent over the barrel forever?
"every iOS user can plainly see that Apple is worse at mapping than Google."
Because previously so many users thought Apple was better at maps than Google?
> Apple was unwilling to negotiate with Google because they are upset over Android. Apple could certainly have improved its existing Maps app if they were willing to play ball with Google.
You speak like you have authoritative information on the negotiations between Apple and Google on maps. Your comment could be taken seriously if you backed it up with sources, instead of dressing up your personal opinion to sound like a fact.
> You can almost hear him gritting his teeth as he types this, not quite able to give up Apple just yet. "Apple wins (for me) in design, but everything else is Google. But I can't bring myself to explicitly say 'this is the better app'."
Well, "design" is a subjective thing, so Apple fanbois can always say that Apple has better design. Other, more impartial people[0] say that it's better designed than Apple Maps.
But can you blame Gruber? Spreading Apple propaganda is how he puts food on the table. By being an Apple shill, he gets fed insider info from his Apple sources. And the only reason anyone pays attention to him is because of those sources.
heh also claiming while this app is good, Android's version is of course not. Because it's not Google-y, like Google's iOS apps. It's too sterile - Android must be made by some kind of subsidiary, that has nothing to do with the Google, that makes these iOS apps. Because in reality I hate Android and everything that surrounds it, but I have to admit the Google Maps app is quite good actually, so my Cognitive dissonance came up with this totally rational explanation.
> ... here we are three months after iOS 6 was released and iPhone users now have a better Google Maps experience than they did when Google was providing the back-end data for the built-in Maps app. It all worked out.
Gruber's feats of mental gymnastics are second to none.
Agreed. He talks as if the old Maps app was some kind of immovable object. Obviously, we'll never know the details of the negotiation, but it could have worked out considerably better by upgrading the old Maps app to the current Google Maps app.
Of course, there are many reasons why that might not the case, but the suggestion that somehow everything has worked out the best it could have possibly done is laughable.
I'm not sure upgrading was possible. The old maps app was actually made entirely by Apple while this new one is made entirely by Google. I can't imagine Apple would give a third-party a system level app. Just look at YouTube.
The same reasons why Apple wouldn't package Google Maps with iOS are the same reasons Google wouldn't package iTunes with Android. You don't want to concede ground to your competition. Now if they want to fight for it that is a entirely different story.
Yeah if you want to divorce yourself completely from the business side of things I understand that perspective.
I would not however expect a company to do something that would harm them just to please me. They are a business trying to make money to survive. Doesn't matter if it is a massive company or small startup.
EDIT: Ideally I would have like the Google app to have come out a lot quicker than it did so the transition period was better but I'm not sure who to blame for that. Odds are it was Apple who pulled the rug out from beneath Google's feet during the negotiation but that is all here-say and conjecture. Probably 10 years from now we'll read in some book how shit went down.
And for the most part I've got that. I can count on one hand the number of bad experiences I've had with Apple products. I also guess I lucked out a bit because the iOS 6 maps worked fine for me but I do live in Canada's largest city so that is probably a factor.
I've converted dozens of people over to Apple and no one has complained that they should have gone to Android or stayed with Windows.
> The same reasons why Apple wouldn't package Google Maps with iOS are the same reasons Google wouldn't package iTunes with Android. You don't want to concede ground to your competition. Now if they want to fight for it that is a entirely different story.
Apple would never make iTunes for Android though, so it's an unfair comparison. I have every reason to believe that Google would be willing to have its Maps application be the default.
I don't think any actual users realized that Google did not write the code for the previous Maps application, it makes no difference who writes the code. It was Google Maps, that's all that mattered. Apple already has exclusive rights to approve all iOS applications, so having a third party write the code would not be any more of a risk than shipping an internal app everyone knows is powered by Google.
Oh of course Google would want it's application to be the default. Who wouldn't? It is free users.
To my knowledge pure Google Android doesn't package any third-party apps that tap into third-party services which compete with Google. I'm happy that they don't block any apps from being added to the marketplace and for the most part I am happy with Apple for that same stance as well.
I have Chrome, Gmail and Google Maps alongside Safari, Mail and Maps now. Heck even Google Voice competes with Siri. This is only making my life as a iOS user better.
> To my knowledge pure Google Android doesn't package any third-party apps that tap into third-party services which compete with Google.
"Pure" Google Android doesn't package anything, to get the Google applications you need to make a deal with Google. If you were able to convince Apple to make an iTunes Android app you could certainly ship it by default on a phone. Real life example: some devices from AT&T ship with "AT&T Navigation" which competes with Google's kit.
Even better would be if Apple ported its maps app to Android and offered it to anyone who wants to ship it by default. I predict a grand total of 0 devices from a large brand would ship with it.
But Google has no control over the carriers. They can't prevent them from putting that stuff on it. They got in bed with the carriers to distribute as many phones with Android on them as possible.
I don't use nav apps daily like many do but it seems to be a given that most heavy users will move to Google Maps as their permanent solution. This can only bring more and more focus onto iOS's most glaring weakness: the lack of contracts/intents/services. If the next version of iOS doesn't have it I think you will see jailbreaking go mainstream.
Jailbreaking will never go mainstream. It has never been easy and/or safe enough for that. Just like how a small percentage of Android users root their phones.
However "remote controllers" in iOS 6 are definitely the precursor to the Android intents. It will be interesting to see if they make it into iOS 7 as a public API.
Really? I think you mean unlocking. Carriers are usually content producers and jailbreaking is mostly done for piracy reasons so I'd be surprised if carriers are onboard.
Permanent solution? That's hard to say. No one should expect Apple to rest on their laurels for Maps though - they can't afford to admit defeat. They must continue to strive to make their Maps app as-good-as or even better than Google Maps. It'll be interesting to see what Apple does next.
63 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadGoogle makes money off of us primarily by selling our data, in one way or another. Apple makes money off of us by selling us phones, primarily.
One of those companies (Apple) was dedicated to keeping the customer experience positive and found themselves with few options. The other (Google) took an action that harmed customers they shared with Apple, to hurt Apple.
I know who I want to keep doing business with, as Google begins to close the Android ecosystem and people tend to forget that a significant core portion of iOS is open-source, just like OSX. I doubt Android will continue to be much more open.
If we're talking about blame for Apple Maps being sub-par, obviously that's Apple's fault.
Almost like Apple planned it that way is the implication.
Except the reality is that his last sentence should end ", no thanks to Apple".
"I consider Apple’s new Maps the better-designed app, but this new Google Maps is very good. And Google’s advantage in search accuracy goes without saying."
You can almost hear him gritting his teeth as he types this, not quite able to give up Apple just yet. "Apple wins (for me) in design, but everything else is Google. But I can't bring myself to explicitly say 'this is the better app'."
That may be what you infer, but I don't agree that it's what he implies.
But it's true. In iOS 5 I had Google Maps but no vector tiles, no turn-by-turn or voice navigation, and Apple tried to get Google to work with them on that but (regardless of whose fault it was) negotiations failed. Now, here we are, and as an iPhone user I now have a Google Maps that not only has those features but is arguably, currently, better than the Android version(!)
Furthermore, there's now been an explosion of map apps on the app store: Nokia's Here, Waze, etc. Competition is good. In iOS 5, there weren't viable alternatives (or they weren't advertised?), but now I have four good map apps on my phone. And when one of them fails, and it will (even Google, which was useless for me when I visited Japan recently) I now have several alternatives. As a user, for me, it's a win win.
But that's then letting Apple off the hook. Obviously we don't know the details of the negotiation but the facts are that Apple left a deal on the table, and gave their users a significantly sub-par experience as a result. That blow has been considerably softened by Google releasing their own app, but treating "negotiations failed" as some sort of "it's no-one's fault" result is letting everyone involved get away with a negative result.
The lack of innovation was exclusively Apple's fault. They neglected to update its Google Maps powered app and decided to enter into war with Google at the detriment to Apple customers. If Steve Jobs hadn't gone nuclear on Google, the Maps debacle would never have happened.
> Furthermore, there's now been an explosion of map apps on the app store: Nokia's Here, Waze, etc. Competition is good. In iOS 5, there weren't viable alternatives (or they weren't advertised?), but now I have four good map apps on my phone. And when one of them fails, and it will (even Google, which was useless for me when I visited Japan recently) I now have several alternatives. As a user, for me, it's a win win.
Waze was released in 2009. Nokia's Here is new, but most of the others that are popular in the store have been around quite some time. They "exploded" because Apple shafted its user base, it wasn't because of innovation.
Actually, Eric Schmidt left the Apple Board and soured the relationship as soon as Android approached a real priority for Google, and Google's choice to revoke free Maps API access destroyed the iOS Maps user experience (I often was advertised restaurants when trying to find the location of a job interview, for instance).
Apple could not have launched a new iOS and phone with the existing Maps experience. They didn't shaft anyone.
FWIW, I still think Apple's Maps are better, it took me a couple weeks to decide to take the dive, but I've been happy with it, and neither Apple Maps or Google Maps offer cycling directions, which IMO is the only major advantage of Google's data set in my life.
From what body cavity have you pulled this?
At this point the calculus is pretty well understood. Apple's license covered bitmap tiles, traffic and transit routing.
Apple wanted turn-by-turn and vector maps.
Google wanted ads, prominent Google branding and way more user data.
Neither side would give ground. So they hit an impasse. That's it.
So yes, Apple decided that it would drop Google. They were in a tough spot, hating Google with every breath but then relying on them for mapping, but it was a bed that they made.
Considering that the YouTube and Google Maps applications rocketed to the top of the store instantly, do you think Apple was concerned about its users or concerned about sticking it to Google? Apple's users want Google's applications, Apple does not want to cooperate with Google. It's that simple.
I think it's more likely they hated the thought of an ad-heavy maps app that shuttled enormous volumes of their customer data to another party. Apple is an enormous company with significant value tied up in the success of their flagship product, the iPhone. "Hate" – or whatever emotions you're suggesting here – might occupy the minds of leadership, but they're going to make decisions based on what's best for the company. Clearly they thought an ad-heavy maps app was not best.
I would also like YouTube with no ads. I just don't use the Google YouTube app anymore.
I'm all for Apple trying to keep device ad free.
"Sources tell AllThingsD that Google, for example, wanted more say in the iOS maps feature set. It wasn’t happy simply providing back-end data. It asked for in-app branding. Apple declined. It suggested adding Google Latitude. Again, Apple declined. And these became major points of contention between the two companies, whose relationship was already deteriorating for a variety of other reasons, including Apple’s concern that Google was gathering too much user data from the app."
http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crash...
Google Latitude doesn't automatically mean its collecting more data, since its opt in/sign in even on Android.
Maybe Apple should have taken more time to make the transition. But the result is Apple is the master of its own destiny, Google is the master of its own destiny and it seems to work out for the better right now. Both apps have features the formerly co-owned app had not. Long term it's healthier I think.
Let's not overdramatize. And the iOS Maps experience based on Google's data was really terrible while iOS 6 was in development and when it was released.
There's also nothing wrong with Apple Maps that wasn't wrong with Google Maps literally years after it was launched.
If Apple doesn't build it's own Maps, we still have the old shittier maps app though right?
Gruber in May:
"This is a high-pressure switch for Apple. Regressions will not be acceptable. The purported whiz-bang 3D view stuff might be great, but users are going to have pitchforks and torches in hand if practical stuff like driving and walking directions are less accurate than they were with Google’s data."
Can you almost hear him grit his teeth while he ... accurately predicts the mapping fiasco before the beta had even been released?
And this is thanks to Apple's own my-way-or-the-highway design decisions with iOS. It's amazing how people still put up with not being able to change default application settings in iOS. Then again, that goes to show you how strong the RDF still is. Apple fanbois like Steko continue to come out of the woodwork any time Apple gets criticized, ready to defend them no matter what decision they've made.
Me in this thread, 30 min before your post:
"This can only bring more and more focus onto iOS's most glaring weakness: the lack of contracts/intents/services. If the next version of iOS doesn't have it I think you will see jailbreaking go mainstream."
...
"fanbois like Steko"
Christ, what an asshole.
Because nothing says "Apple fanboi" like unprompted criticism of iOS. Spoilers: internet checkmate.
"You made it clear that you think that people's response to Apple not fixing iOS's "most glaring weakness" will be to jailbreak, and not to leave iOS for greener pastures."
I did not "make that clear", I gave one result which I think will be common. Some people will certainly leave too, and I could well be one of them (cmon Nexus 7 LTE) but you give up more of whatever you like about the platform by leaving than by jailbreaking so you'd have to value intents and contracts somewhat more.
Despite you repeatedly calling me a "fanboi" I have no special loyalty to Apple. Before I got my 4S almost a year ago I gave my wife my 3GS and used her shitty sony-ericson flip phone for 6 months and I was fine with that. I used Macs in college and despite liking them and abhoring Microsoft at that time the last 5 machines I've bought have all been PCs which I've been very satisfied with. If I was going to buy a new desktop today it would certainly be a pc. A new laptop? I suspect an ultrabook but it might be a retina MBP. In the same way I like the iphone but I don't stand in line on release day nor do I buy every one nor do I expect to always buy iphones or even phones in the future. The iphones I've bought have always been because, when I went to buy phones, it was the best phone. Now reasonable people may disagree with that assessment but there's also no shortage of objective evidence that supports it.
"Tell me again, what's the difference between Gruber's biased rhetoric and your own?"
I'll answer right after you let us know, have you stopped beating your wife?
I do remember your username as maybe the second most Apple-biased contributor on HN. Feel free to say the same about me and Google if that is what you think...
I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to find what this is replying to.
"Among other things, Apple is responsible for the old, shitty map"
Which was wildly lauded when it came out and later stagnated due to mutual differences.
"they are responsible for not getting Google more native integration"
Seems like there were two parties involved.
"and having NIH syndrome"
It's not at all hilarious to scold Apple for NIH syndrome when we're talking about Apple and Google.
"Plainly, "thanks to Apple," iOS6 Maps is a failure, and it is a huge misstep for one of (of two) the world's flagship mobile-OS."
Plainly, iOS6 maps are passable and in some ways were better than the old shitty maps powered by Google and today's Google's maps is better than both by a big margin.
You'll note I don't say this is "Thanks to Apple" here but the "Apple is responsible for everything bad and everything good that happens is no thanks to Apple" meme that has taken over this discussion is utterly ridiculous.
Apple should absolutely be scolded for what they sold to their users. Maps are one of, if not the most, important feature of a smartphone. Can you return your phone over it? They failed. Google is offering their's for "free."
Google couldn't be persuaded (or allowed) to commit code to native iOS? They couldn't be bought? I fail to see how they had the option to power anything, when they are willing to offer a superior solution for FREE!
"I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to find how Google is to blame for the shortcomings of pre-iOS6 maps."
I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to find where someone is "blaming Google".
Apple was unwilling to negotiate with Google because they are upset over Android. Apple could certainly have improved its existing Maps app if they were willing to play ball with Google. They weren't and now they look even more ridiculous because every iOS user can plainly see that Apple is worse at mapping than Google.
Alternatively we could use our pretend mind reading in the other direction and say that "Google was unwilling to negotiate with Apple because they had them over the barrel?"
Or we could realize that there are two parties in a negotiation and come to the conclusion both did what would be expected and in the end users will certainly benefit the most by having lots of competition in the mapping space.
"Apple could certainly have improved its existing Maps app if they were willing to play ball with Google. "
Which would have left them bent over the barrel forever?
"every iOS user can plainly see that Apple is worse at mapping than Google."
Because previously so many users thought Apple was better at maps than Google?
You speak like you have authoritative information on the negotiations between Apple and Google on maps. Your comment could be taken seriously if you backed it up with sources, instead of dressing up your personal opinion to sound like a fact.
Well, "design" is a subjective thing, so Apple fanbois can always say that Apple has better design. Other, more impartial people[0] say that it's better designed than Apple Maps.
But can you blame Gruber? Spreading Apple propaganda is how he puts food on the table. By being an Apple shill, he gets fed insider info from his Apple sources. And the only reason anyone pays attention to him is because of those sources.
0: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/12/3760770/google-maps-iphon...
Gruber's feats of mental gymnastics are second to none.
Of course, there are many reasons why that might not the case, but the suggestion that somehow everything has worked out the best it could have possibly done is laughable.
The same reasons why Apple wouldn't package Google Maps with iOS are the same reasons Google wouldn't package iTunes with Android. You don't want to concede ground to your competition. Now if they want to fight for it that is a entirely different story.
I would not however expect a company to do something that would harm them just to please me. They are a business trying to make money to survive. Doesn't matter if it is a massive company or small startup.
EDIT: Ideally I would have like the Google app to have come out a lot quicker than it did so the transition period was better but I'm not sure who to blame for that. Odds are it was Apple who pulled the rug out from beneath Google's feet during the negotiation but that is all here-say and conjecture. Probably 10 years from now we'll read in some book how shit went down.
I've converted dozens of people over to Apple and no one has complained that they should have gone to Android or stayed with Windows.
Apple would never make iTunes for Android though, so it's an unfair comparison. I have every reason to believe that Google would be willing to have its Maps application be the default.
I don't think any actual users realized that Google did not write the code for the previous Maps application, it makes no difference who writes the code. It was Google Maps, that's all that mattered. Apple already has exclusive rights to approve all iOS applications, so having a third party write the code would not be any more of a risk than shipping an internal app everyone knows is powered by Google.
To my knowledge pure Google Android doesn't package any third-party apps that tap into third-party services which compete with Google. I'm happy that they don't block any apps from being added to the marketplace and for the most part I am happy with Apple for that same stance as well.
I have Chrome, Gmail and Google Maps alongside Safari, Mail and Maps now. Heck even Google Voice competes with Siri. This is only making my life as a iOS user better.
"Pure" Google Android doesn't package anything, to get the Google applications you need to make a deal with Google. If you were able to convince Apple to make an iTunes Android app you could certainly ship it by default on a phone. Real life example: some devices from AT&T ship with "AT&T Navigation" which competes with Google's kit.
Even better would be if Apple ported its maps app to Android and offered it to anyone who wants to ship it by default. I predict a grand total of 0 devices from a large brand would ship with it.
However "remote controllers" in iOS 6 are definitely the precursor to the Android intents. It will be interesting to see if they make it into iOS 7 as a public API.
My understanding is that it's already mainstream for carriers to jailbreak phones for customers in many countries.