361–370 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you be able to tell if it existed earlier? Anyway the point is it exists now.
Because I personally (with many collaborators, of course) wrote that feature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why does Apple reinvent it anyway? Because Apple learnt a long time ago that something essential needs to be in their hands; third parties let Apple down. Google let Apple down by refusing to allow Apple to craft vector-based maps, only allowing Apple to download bitmaps. Thus Apple Maps. Intel let Apple down by failing to predict where the market was moving since about 2012 or so, with the Core processors not gain…
Good point, except OSM isn't dependent on any company or person in particular. It's a community effort. Apple could as well contribute whatever improvements it deems necessary to benefit themselves and everyone else. They could write their own renderers and whatnot, it's been done many times by different companies. It would've been a much better starting point, too, than whatever proprietary data they licensed to get…
That doesn't stop Apple needing control, or at least feeling that way.
> Apple could as well contribute whatever improvements it deems necessary to benefit themselves and everyone else
They do. Apple uses OSM data and contributes to OSM indirectly (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Apple).
> It would've been a much better starting point, too
Who's to say? As stated, Apple does use OSM data. They use data from multiple different sources. (http://gspa21.ls.apple.com/html/attribution.html)
> than whatever proprietary data they licensed to get started
I detect a bit of a fallacy in what you're saying, that Apple wanting to have control over their own geographical data must mean that they aren't using or contributing to OSM. It isn't a zero-sum situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and you also don't contribute to the creators incomes. I can understand people vouching for using youtube premium or nebula instead, but not this.
Small creators who need income will get barely anything, while the ones the youtube algorithm prefers will get all. So yeah support them directly if you want but not google so I think vanced and the like is perfectly fine solution.
You have found a way not to pay for something, good for you, but brandishing it as some kind of "perfectly fine solution" is just laughable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or just paying for youtube premium ...
I'd sooner stop using YouTube altogether. If paying for Google's services acted as an opt-out from their surveillance then I might consider it; but they'd never give users the opportunity to not have Google looking over their shoulder.
Isn't the whole moat of google maps that it's part of google? when I search I don't want to have to use different websites for each type of search, right now google is the leader but even if they become only mediocre at maps but stay at no. 1 at search they're very safe. I don't see any future where google creates a special modal box for apple maps on it's search results page no matter who is deemed "the best map"
No, that's only for the very lazy :-)
Especially for something like Maps, that doesn't get some huge benefit from the integration.
I live in London and for commuting around via public transport OR walking I always use Citymapper, which is massively superior than Google Maps for directions. I suspect they are using Googles APIs underneath it all, but their UI is better than Google maps and also their recommended public transport directions are orders of magnitude better than Google Maps. Citymapper will get you between any two locations in London…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple Maps navigation used to do things like take me to vacant lots in major midwestern cities instead of the correct property which was several blocks away. Sounds like it works reliably well outside of California now?
I'd say it's very reliable. I'll still cross reference Waze and Google Maps, if I absolutely need to arrive at somewhere on time, but over the past year or so there's only been a very small number of instances where I thought that Apple's navigation directions were inferior to the competition (and even then, we're talking a few minutes)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd sooner stop using YouTube altogether. If paying for Google's services acted as an opt-out from their surveillance then I might consider it; but they'd never give users the opportunity to not have Google looking over their shoulder.
stopping using youtube altogether I would actually understand
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not reliable if you're cross referencing constantly. I live outside of the USA, and Apple maps consistently screwed up to the point that I've deleted it.
>It's not reliable if you're cross referencing constantly. Eh, I cross reference Google Maps with Waze all the time back when I used it, but I wouldn't dare call Google Maps unreliable. It costs nothing to do, so why wouldn't it?
Unless "back when I used it" refers to pre-2013, I'm not sure I'd describe that as cross-referencing.
I really want to use Apple Maps full time on my iPhone, just because of how much clutter Google Maps has accumulated on the screen. If anything tells me Google is losing the ability to innovate it's the newly added pill buttons for pre-set searches and branded POIs on the map. I remember when this was added to MapQuest circa 2010, and was the transition from trying to have an excellent mapping experience to just addi…
> how much clutter Google Maps has accumulated on the screen I have to use Google Maps "Go" (the light-weight version) on my phone because of all the clutter in their mobile version. Granted I have an older phone - Galaxy S7 - but for something that worked just fine on even older devices, I don't think that's a valid excuse for it being nearly unusable on an S7 now. Thankfully Maps Go is pretty quick, but the biggest…