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

Apple's New Map

justinobeirne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 377 posts

Re: Apple's New Map

#21

Post by xvector »

I think this article illustrates a critical issue with Apple's software. The stance on privacy means little machine learning can take place. Little machine learning means that Apple has to resort to more manual techniques. This, in turn, leads to the far inferior (and often dangerously incorrect) place databases and issues with their Maps application.

And then users will simply turn to an alternative which absolutely does not care about their privacy, undoing all of Apple's effort in protecting their users' privacy.

Apple needs to strike a balance between protecting users' privacy and performing analytics. Perhaps send the data off-shore to a location not under US jurisdiction, I don't know. But it is clear that Apple cannot keep up with its competitors with its current practices.

Re: Apple's New Map

#24

Post by underwater »

bitcurious wrote: post #20

>In other words, TomTom’s database somehow has roads from Parkfield’s boomtown days—roads that have been gone for more than 75 years. No wonder why Apple removed them. Another possible explanation is the TomTom was using these unlikely to be visited streets as trap streets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street >In cartography, a trap street is a fictitious entry in the form of a misrepresented street on a map, o…

Using streets from maps that predate TomTom’s maps defeats the purpose of a trap street. The plagiariser could just claim to have sourced the data from old, public domain, sources.

Re: Apple's New Map

#26

Post by glhaynes »

ndnxhs wrote: post #14
saagarjha wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm left wondering how much data would be saved if they were videos rather than GIFs. They'd probably end up being better quality, too!

I usually embed webm files with no sound and set them to auto play and repeat. Works really well.

Not so well for Safari and IE users.

Re: Apple's New Map

#28

Post by bitcurious »

underwater wrote: post #24
bitcurious wrote: post #20

>In other words, TomTom’s database somehow has roads from Parkfield’s boomtown days—roads that have been gone for more than 75 years. No wonder why Apple removed them. Another possible explanation is the TomTom was using these unlikely to be visited streets as trap streets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street >In cartography, a trap street is a fictitious entry in the form of a misrepresented street on a map, o…

Using streets from maps that predate TomTom’s maps defeats the purpose of a trap street. The plagiariser could just claim to have sourced the data from old, public domain, sources.

True, but that is assuming that those streets ever existed. As far as I can tell from the article that's just an assumption.

Although I think it would actually be possible to use once-real-but-no-longer steets as trap streets, as long as your sources are improbable enough. For example, if you take a map from 1908, remove one street, then add in another single street from 1920, etc., your exact combination of streets could serve as proof of copyright infringement.

Re: Apple's New Map

#30

Post by saagarjha »

xvector wrote: post #21

I think this article illustrates a critical issue with Apple's software. The stance on privacy means little machine learning can take place. Little machine learning means that Apple has to resort to more manual techniques. This, in turn, leads to the far inferior (and often dangerously incorrect) place databases and issues with their Maps application. And then users will simply turn to an alternative which absolutely…

I think they do a pretty good job with the little data they do collect. For example, I almost exclusively use Apple Maps–it's not like it's unusable. It might help that all my navigation needs fall inside of California, but at least here I haven't had many issues.
Post reply on HN