Google Maps's Moat: How Far Ahead of Apple Maps is Google Maps? (justinobeirne.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Over the past year, we've been comparing Google Maps and Apple Maps in New York, San Francisco, and London -- but some of the biggest differences are outside of large cities. That's a comprehensive comparison. Google Maps, unlike Apple Maps, doesn't stop at outlining the routes. It offers contextual details such as depiction of buildings and other structures and vegetation. It has captured everything -- from dish antennae on top of buildings to golf courses. Furthermore, Google Maps also shows name of the neighbourhood, and has more distinguishable icons and colors. You can glance at a portion of the map on Google Maps and get a good picture of what's in that place. Apple Maps, on the other hand, looks empty. Like an unfurnished house.
Google maps was great... then they decide to take away features randomly that are extremely useful.
At least Apple Maps is consistent.
A man using Apple Maps walks into a bar, or a hotel, or possibly a church...
Apple's map database is downright horrendous. It's almost like they intentionally want to mislead drivers as a practical joke.
I use OpenStreetMap http://www.osm.org/ . It is kind of Wikipedia approach to mapping.
By the way, I use this web application to view Wikipedia articles on the OSM map: http://ausleuchtung.ch/geo_wik... . It works for all language versions of Wikipedia, and to view hotels, supermarkets, etc. this one: http://ausleuchtung.ch/travel_...
Apple's maps were only ever intended to act as an insurance policy if Steve Job's thermonuclear war with Google got Google Maps removed from the App Store. That happened for a short time, but now it's back and things have cooled significantly since 2012 on the patent war. Navigation is as much a minimum expectation of a smartphone now as email is. It was only ever developed at all to ensure there would always be maps available for the iPhone. In the event that Google removes Maps from the App Store, Apple will immediately make new, immediate, and significant investments in their program. Until then, they don't care.
Wherever you have four priests, you have a fifth.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
A man was walking in the park with his wife. Suddenly he took his cap off, and his wife asked, "why?". He said, "According to Apple Maps, I am smack bang dang in the middle of First Presbyterian".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Well, if you've ever made any maps with GIS, you'd know that maps aren't just any old artifacts; they're *tools* that support specific *tasks*. Driving from 123 Sesame St to 456 Maple is only one of many possible things you can do with a map. There's deciding whether a park you haven't visited would be a good place to take your toddler. If you've ever done this, you know that you use multiple kinds of details in that particular task. Is the park bordered by busy roads? Does it have a fence? Are there nearby businesses that might have a bathroom?
I use Google Maps to scout new fishing spots -- I'm looking for places where there is access to a likely looking stream, but not so obvious that there will be someone there already. You can do similar kinds of screening for locating places you might want to visit when you're thinking about opening a business. For these kinds of things you need multiple layers of detail, and those layers have to be visually organized.
Maps are like pocket knives. You can whittle with a Swiss Army knife, but it's not as good as a purpose-made whittling knife. Adding details layers to maps is like adding blades to a Swiss Army knife; sure it becomes more versatile, but at some point it becomes more awkward to use for certain tasks. The difference is with maps you can use graphic design to emphasize certain features and de-emphasize others. This reduces visual clutter, and makes it easier to use -- sometimes even when the de-emphasized features are needed for a particular tasks. Tasks proceed in steps and each step needs different information. You use high contrast for details that the user scans for, and low visual contrast is acceptable for steps where he's focused on one spot.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> but they will literally sell that information to anyone willing to pay.
Quite the opposite. Older companies that acquired data used to sell it, and some still do. One thing. That has made Google so successful is that they are careful to keep the data to themselves. It's their golden goose. They sell ADS that are targeted using the data. That way they can keep selling ads to the same companies for years, rather than selling data once. They never sell the data because then it could be passed around and that would reduce their competitive advantage.
Everything tries to kill in Australia. Apple is just trying to fit in. I mean, even on the nice beaches there are warning signs about crocodiles. I already have to worry about the sharks and now I have to worry about crocodiles too.