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

251–260 of 377 posts

Re: Apple's New Map

#251

Post by Mindwipe »

gambiting wrote: post #218
jillesvangurp wrote: post #211

Hilarious that they consider the job done after covering the Bay area. They are years away from doing this world wide. Most of their iphone revenue is from outside of California. I used to work in Nokia in the maps division that later became Here. I still remember when Nokia disrupted a market then dominated by the likes Tom Tom and a few others by giving away the maps for free along with every phone. Initially this…

I would say map quality for someone living outside of the "bubble", map quality goes as follows: TomTom then Google Maps then literally anything else, then Apple Maps at the very end. It's hilarious how empty Apple Maps are, and considering that until very recently they were the only option for Apple CarPlay for navigation, that was extremely bad. Seriously, it was so bad that I would consider my car's built-in, shit…

It literally boggles my mind why Apple still think using Yelp for POI data is a good idea.

Yelp to all intents and purposes does not exist outside of the continental Americas. London's Yelp data is essentially the work of the odd bored American tourist. As such, it's totally wrong.

I do not see how Apple improves this situation from this article. Google have an amazing advantage here.

Re: Apple's New Map

#252

Post by Mindwipe »

ummonk wrote: post #10

It's weird how out of date data in providers like Tom Tom is. I just pulled up the GIS data from Monterey County and it clearly has the same roads that the new Apple Maps shows for Parkfield. (I can't check Markleeville, as Alpine county charges a fee for their GIS data)

My personal favourite was when I lived in Hackney in London, and there was a business listing in Apple Maps (one of the few!) for a garage business that had closed down in 1975, a year before Apple was even formed. That one was pretty special.

Re: Apple's New Map

#253

Post by jillesvangurp »

chrisseaton wrote: post #238
jillesvangurp wrote: post #211

Hilarious that they consider the job done after covering the Bay area. They are years away from doing this world wide. Most of their iphone revenue is from outside of California. I used to work in Nokia in the maps division that later became Here. I still remember when Nokia disrupted a market then dominated by the likes Tom Tom and a few others by giving away the maps for free along with every phone. Initially this…

> Hilarious that they consider the job done after covering the Bay area. It's the whole of northern California isn't it? I wouldn't refer to places like Eureka as 'the Bay Area'.

Lets be fair, from their point of view Cupertino is the center of the universe. Northern California is relatively sparsely populated, which is why they tossed that in and why they skipped the more challenging bits of California in the south. No offense, but from what little I know about Eureka, it is a smallish provincial town stuck somewhere in between the Seattle/Portland area and SFO. And as such, one of the larger settlements you'd encounter on the way from one to the other.

Going from there to country wide, continent wide, and ultimately global coverage is going to take a lot. Apple certainly has the financial means to do so. But it's not necessarily going to happen this decade.

Re: Apple's New Map

#254

Post by Angostura »

gambiting wrote: post #218
jillesvangurp wrote: post #211

Hilarious that they consider the job done after covering the Bay area. They are years away from doing this world wide. Most of their iphone revenue is from outside of California. I used to work in Nokia in the maps division that later became Here. I still remember when Nokia disrupted a market then dominated by the likes Tom Tom and a few others by giving away the maps for free along with every phone. Initially this…

I would say map quality for someone living outside of the "bubble", map quality goes as follows: TomTom then Google Maps then literally anything else, then Apple Maps at the very end. It's hilarious how empty Apple Maps are, and considering that until very recently they were the only option for Apple CarPlay for navigation, that was extremely bad. Seriously, it was so bad that I would consider my car's built-in, shit…

in the UK Apple Maps certainly isn't empty, and actually remains my map of choice on Carplay just because of the better voice integration at the moment.

Re: Apple's New Map

#255

Post by Angostura »

Mindwipe wrote: post #251
gambiting wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say map quality for someone living outside of the "bubble", map quality goes as follows: TomTom then Google Maps then literally anything else, then Apple Maps at the very end. It's hilarious how empty Apple Maps are, and considering that until very recently they were the only option for Apple CarPlay for navigation, that was extremely bad. Seriously, it was so bad that I would consider my car's built-in, shit…

It literally boggles my mind why Apple still think using Yelp for POI data is a good idea. Yelp to all intents and purposes does not exist outside of the continental Americas. London's Yelp data is essentially the work of the odd bored American tourist. As such, it's totally wrong. I do not see how Apple improves this situation from this article. Google have an amazing advantage here.

They appear to use FourSquare, TripAdvisor and other sources in London, not (just?) Yelp

Re: Apple's New Map

#257

Post by microtonal »

gambiting wrote: post #218
jillesvangurp wrote: post #211

Hilarious that they consider the job done after covering the Bay area. They are years away from doing this world wide. Most of their iphone revenue is from outside of California. I used to work in Nokia in the maps division that later became Here. I still remember when Nokia disrupted a market then dominated by the likes Tom Tom and a few others by giving away the maps for free along with every phone. Initially this…

I would say map quality for someone living outside of the "bubble", map quality goes as follows: TomTom then Google Maps then literally anything else, then Apple Maps at the very end. It's hilarious how empty Apple Maps are, and considering that until very recently they were the only option for Apple CarPlay for navigation, that was extremely bad. Seriously, it was so bad that I would consider my car's built-in, shit…

I would say map quality for someone living outside of the "bubble", map quality goes as follows:

TomTom then Google Maps then literally anything else, then Apple Maps at the very end.

Apple Maps uses TomTom data [1]. This is also our experience with driving in Germany and The Netherlands. Apple Maps is very complete and had better lane guidance than Google Maps (when we switched from Google Maps to Apple Maps when getting CarPlay). We never had problems with Apple Maps in these countries, nor Austria and Switzerland.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-tomtom/apple-rebuil...

Re: Apple's New Map

#258

Post by FabHK »

jldugger wrote: post #172
logicallee wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was specifically exploring this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18359646 I wanted to see how it would look if "whenever you zoom in enough that there's enough room on a visible street to put a label, then put the label!" I think my render looks absolutely fine. I don't see why I wouldn't always use it if I had a toggle switch. Yes it's cluttered if you just glance at it, but we don't use maps as piece…

I think you're misunderstanding the OP's complaint. It's not that streets aren't repeatedly labelled. In fact your before had multiple labels. It's that sometimes google maps chooses not to label things at all until you zoom in more. Or sometimes out, strangely.

Funny thing is, as far as I can tell, logicallee is not misunderstanding OP's complaint, he is subscribing to it and substantiating it.

Some people, among them apparently map makers, argue that "users don't want too many labels". logicallee is arguing that it's virtually impossible to put too many labels (by putting in as many labels as possible and showing that it's perfectly legible, and totally fine functionally, even if it's not the most aesthetic experience).

FWIW, I subscribe to OP, that it's infuriating not to have streets labeled, and find logicallee's point rather convincing, that having more labels doesn't really distract from the functionality of the map (and I don't care that it affects the map's "beauty").

Re: Apple's New Map

#259

Post by Gys »

gambiting wrote: post #218
jillesvangurp wrote: post #211

Hilarious that they consider the job done after covering the Bay area. They are years away from doing this world wide. Most of their iphone revenue is from outside of California. I used to work in Nokia in the maps division that later became Here. I still remember when Nokia disrupted a market then dominated by the likes Tom Tom and a few others by giving away the maps for free along with every phone. Initially this…

I would say map quality for someone living outside of the "bubble", map quality goes as follows: TomTom then Google Maps then literally anything else, then Apple Maps at the very end. It's hilarious how empty Apple Maps are, and considering that until very recently they were the only option for Apple CarPlay for navigation, that was extremely bad. Seriously, it was so bad that I would consider my car's built-in, shit…

I would also like Google Maps to pronounce streetnames in the local language. It knows the street is (for example) in France. So please pronounce the name in French, instead of English. Maybe I do not understand French, but whatever their English pronunciation makes of it is equally unclear... At least the French version in the correct one...

Re: Apple's New Map

#260

Post by addicted »

gambiting wrote: post #237
kingkongjaffa wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for driving Waze is number 1 for me

Waze doesn't even exist outside of the US. Edit: Ok, this is wrong, sorry. I searched for "Waze UK" on google and the first result just takes me to the US site.

Waze wasn’t even created in the US. It was an Israeli company (until Google bought it. I’m not sure what the structure looks like now and if it is developed independently).
Post reply on HN