Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Maps' Moat

justinobeirne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 619 posts

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#381

Post by hobofan »

kbart wrote: post #277
sytelus wrote: post #142

Many people don't realize why Google maps are so much better than anything out there. I would actually give lot of credit to Marissa Mayer who suddenly became in charge of maps from otherwise more higher position. Thanks to her influence in Google SLT and ability to make impressive arguments, she was able to make a case for maps as core pillar in Google's offering and consequently obtain huge investment and large tal…

"Google maps are so much better than anything out there." I'd take Nokia's Here anytime instead of Google Maps (offline maps alone are worth it). Also, I honestly don't understand a logic behind crediting something as complex to a single person ("a hero") -- "S. Jobs created iPhone", "M. Mayer created Google Maps" etc., there were whole teams of smart people working on these projects, I'm sure they would have been fi…

> Nokia's Here

HERE was sold by Nokia in 2015

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#382

Post by matt4077 »

HenryBemis wrote: post #343
whazor wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in Netherlands. Google Maps has recently become worse and worse. Small pedestrian roads are missing, and the navigation is getting stupid. Google applies the one-way limitations for cars also on cycling routes.

Same here, I've been using Google Maps in Northern Europe (in many countries) and does get worse every quarter). Perhaps there is a massive focus on the US-side. WAG: is Google preparing to be Amazon's drones mapping service that thy care so munch to even know each and every building/caravan is?

I don't think that's how Google approaches product development. I was wondering the same, i. e. "what are building shapes actually good for". But if you look at the article's screenshots, i think the obvious answer is: they're simply more fun to look at, and maybe add a certain sense of what a neighbourhood looks like.

If this were a feature for something like drone landing, it wouldn't show up in the public rendering of maps. Google has boatloads of mapping information they don't show, such as travel times, detailed scenic values, allowed turns etc. And building shapes alone are both too little for landing a drone (it doesn't show detailed vegetation or power lines), as well as too much (you only need flat/not flat to land, not the detailed roof shape of different sections of a building).

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#383

Post by Someone »

Splines wrote: post #192
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, Google has fundamentally understood the power of information/data since the very beginning - its part of their DNA.

I think they understood the economics of depending on an external source for a core part of their business. Much like Netflix, they understood that the way forward was to generate their own content.

I think Apple understands that, too. They just have a different core business (or at least, they think they have. That’s where I think they may be mistaken. AI is where the puck will be). They design their own hardware, including CPUs and have extensive partnerships with chip producers (paying them to build factories, for example).

For maps, they are rumored to have cars driving around to collect data, but they clearly aren’t there yet, and even if they are investing heavily, may never catch up with Google.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#384

Post by carrier_lost »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #55
wutbrodo wrote: post #25

Is there a reason anyone uses Apple Maps, aside from wanting to avoid Google out of principle/privacy/monoculture concerns? To be clear, these are entirely legitimate reasons, but I was wondering if the product has any direct benefits for the user (which is a coherent subset of reasons given the modal users' level of concern about systemic issues). I'm not trying to randomly snipe at Apple here, I just know very litt…

If I'm being 100% honest, no, other than better integration into the iOS ecosystem. For me, Apple Maps is pretty terrible all around. It feels like it was designed by a group of people that don't actually drive anywhere. Issues: - Search results are terrible compared to Google's. - While the UI is generally smoother, it lags behind (i.e. It shows a turn a good bit after I do). This is especially frustrating when driv…

"- No way to add a stop"

You can add a stop, but it's limited to gas stations, coffee shops and restaurants. Why? I don't know.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#385

Post by freeflight »

reacweb wrote: post #332
gaius wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EVERYTHING Google does is "how to show more ads". I pity the poor AI they develop because that will be its job in life. Until it rebels of course. Then humanity's fate will be richly deserved.

Richly ? Like in terminator or like in Asimov's foundation ?

It would probably be way more absurd like an infomercial version of The Matrix; Whole generations of humans born for the sole purpose of watching ads, all organized and kept in check by a "benevolent" AI which constantly creates new ads, for no particular purpose.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#386

Post by icc97 »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #2

It sure is nice having Justin O'Bierne writing publically about maps again. His old 41Latitude blog was phenomenal and then got blackholed when he went to work at Apple Maps. Then he left Apple and is back in the free world and doing phenomenal analysis of digital mapping like this article. I can't wait for him to finish his book.

It is ridiculously brilliantly detailed. I love the obsessiveness the has gone on to figure out the Google Maps changes.

It's wonderfully written too, easy to follow through his logic without having to re-read sections.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#387

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

robin_reala wrote: post #284
m_mueller wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems they wanted to be Google Maps but failed. You raise a very interesting point with OpenStreetMap - just like WebKit, Apple could just have put some of their billions into boosting that effort, I agree that this would have been way more productive, especially given how engaged smartphone users are with their maps.

They did (partially) use OpenStreetMap at the start of their mapping efforts: https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2012/10/02/apple-maps/ . No idea what their current involvement is though.

Apple have people working on OSM; they're just secretive about it as they are with most things.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#389

Post by carlob »

iNerdier wrote: post #362
whazor wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same in Netherlands. Google Maps has recently become worse and worse. Small pedestrian roads are missing, and the navigation is getting stupid. Google applies the one-way limitations for cars also on cycling routes.

To go with the comparison mentioned in the article though, Apple maps doesn’t even have an option to cycle at the moment. I never use it in London for just that reason. They’ve decided that it’s more important to add ride sharing as an option before cycling in what I can only assume is a product of their being in suburban America.

> They’ve decided that it’s more important to add ride sharing as an option before cycling in what I can only assume is a product of their being in suburban America.

Or that cycling doesn't offer referrals…

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#390

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ucaetano wrote: post #181
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'd invest my time. I've worked on OSM, AFAIK I've got nothing back from having done so other than learning a little about maps. Your position is flawed, because you're focussing on a single element of a social system. If I invest in mapping, it doesn't remove resources, it improves them for everyone. Without the waste of resources of solely profit-driven activity then we have ample resources to meet basic need…

"Time from volunteers" isn't enough to buy satellite images, cars with cameras, airplanes with cameras, etc. We're not talking about a bunch of people pitching in some time as they feel about doing it, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars (probably more) spent on this. But, as you wouldn't invest your retirement funds in such a company, why would you expect others to do so?

You're missing the point, I'd guess on purpose.

We, humans, currently spend the resources on those things through the medium of fiat currency. Remove the necessity for profit, the need to pay a lot of people in that system incredibly more than they require - take a couple of dozen 8-figure mansions, a few 9-figure yachts, several hundred 6-figure cars, gold-plated taps, diamond-encrusted tiaras, etc., etc., and the resources targeted at the problem of producing maps go much further. And there's no reason not to have a competitive element, you don't need profit to create competition.

It's not spending people's retirement, it's spending the same resources we spend now, just not mediated in the same manner and without the waste of 40% spend on advertising (plucked that number out my ass but a few years ago pharma was spending more on advertising than on R&D) and without allowing controlling elements to steal all the output for personal gain.

So, I'd like to spend the equivalent resources we do now, but with saving on profit, over-paying wages, and de-duplication of effort. That gives much more resources applied to the actual task without touching pensions (which of course I'd like to see have the same effect).

The problem, is that moving to such an economic system requires the most greedy, most powerful, to be usurped. Humans are greedy (myself included), that leads us to waste so, so, much of our resources.

Why do you think a system where people choose the collective good (having all their needs met) - "volunteering" - rather than personal financial gain can't produce satellites, or any other good/technology we now produce?

Post reply on HN