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

551–560 of 619 posts

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#551

Post by tintor »

sandworm101 wrote: post #481
iNerdier wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> is a product of their being in suburban America. Close, but imho is has more to do with liability, a fear common at all american companies. Car drivers are licensed. They can be expected to obey traffic laws. So when google sends them down the wrong way on a one-way road, nobody blames google. They blame the adult who listened to their phone rather than the signs. But bicyclists are not licensed. If google says th…

"And the one-way thing for bike routes is likely based on the widespread understanding ..."

There are many examples of one-way roads with two-way bike lanes, ie San Francisco:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco+City+Hall/@3...

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#553

Post by GFischer »

toyg wrote: post #347
gaius wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Google usually spearheads a field, whereas Microsoft does that when they are catching up with existing leaders In what way? Google didn't invent search, mail, banner ads... nor maps.

Google Maps was leaps and bounds better than anything in the mapping space at the time. Google Mail was leaps and bounds better than anything in the webmail space at the time (more space, better spam filter, better UI, imap support...). The pagerank intuition (and the technical way of achieving it, with clusters of cheap PCs) was original in search at the time, which is how they built their lead. Ads they mostly got…

I agree about Maps and Mail, but I disagree about your assesment of Microsoft only failing - they had quite a few misses, but you're discrediting their hits.

The XBox's innovation (according to developers) was in making game development easier (DirectX) - heck, it was called DirectX Box originally!.

.Net started as a Java clone, but outpaced it significantly (LINQ, Lambdas, Generics, extensions, anonymous types) mostly thanks to Anders Hejlsberg.

I agree they had their share of high-profile failures, Windows CE and all of Microsoft's mobile forays failed, the current Windows Mobile was starting to get good but they had to kill it.

Excel was better than anything that came before and was a category-killer, so not "just another office suite" (although they did use their monopoly to force it).

They did have some wins (Azure) and they still have their cash cows to fall on.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#554

Post by sandworm101 »

tintor wrote: post #551
sandworm101 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> is a product of their being in suburban America. Close, but imho is has more to do with liability, a fear common at all american companies. Car drivers are licensed. They can be expected to obey traffic laws. So when google sends them down the wrong way on a one-way road, nobody blames google. They blame the adult who listened to their phone rather than the signs. But bicyclists are not licensed. If google says th…

"And the one-way thing for bike routes is likely based on the widespread understanding ..." There are many examples of one-way roads with two-way bike lanes, ie San Francisco: https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco+City+Hall/@3...

And the presence of those only adds to my point. Where bike lanes are not specifically states as being 2-way, the default for someone like google is to treat them according to the rules of the road they run alongside.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#555

Post by che_shirecat »

jdminhbg wrote: post #103
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…

Two reasons: 1. Google’s Material UI is a total dumpster fire and I use it only as a last resort. 2. Apple Maps integrates much better with everything else I’m using, so the experience is smoother (e.g., looking up an address on my laptop and then sending directions to my phone). I keep Google Maps around as a backup, mostly for places of interest way out in the boonies, like hiking trailheads.

Do you have any coherent reasoning behind your characterization of Material as a "total dumpster fire"? Other than "I don't like it and thus it must be bad?"

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#556

Post by lucb1e »

acd wrote: post #550

One should compare Openstreet map vs Google Maps.

I'm a big fan of OpenStreetMap and a regular contributor, but that's just not a fair comparison. Using a billion dollars a year, of course Google has street view, satellite view, 3d buildings, live traffic info... all of which I see as nigh impossible for OpenStreetMap.

But I still use OSM daily. My main mapping needs are basic needs like everyone else's: where is this thing and how do I get there? OSM is very good at that in every place I've been (most of western Europe). It's also something I believe should be free data (as in freedom), but Google keeps it all locked in. Other basic data about our physical world, like where railways or forests are, is also very accurately in there.

When I need advanced stuff like live traffic, or want to see something on satellite, I'll have to resort to other services. And I think that's reasonable: they're costly to setup and maintain, so paying someone for that makes sense.

If we make such a comparison, I'd rather see Google Maps starting with a large negative score for keeping it locked-in, and then comparing whether they're actually, functionally better for different common uses, rather than "oh look at this gimmick, they even have the air ducts mapped on the roof over there" as this article seems to do.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#557

Post by lucb1e »

_s4qd wrote: post #127
jonknee wrote: post #111

Google also has a giant lead in trails / feature names. I hike a ton and Google has been adding trails at a brisk pace. I just checked the Snoqualmie Pass area about an hour outside of Seattle and Apple Maps has almost no trails, named mountains or named lakes (even quite large ones). A few trails show up as unnamed roads. There's also no relief shading to tell where the mountains are or a terrain view for contour li…

I've added a lot of those places manually through the "Add a missing place" in the menu. The review process either takes 2 days or stays in limbo forever. Google maps also gamified the contribution process so you can get internet points for improving their maps.

Just to make sure, you're aware that this information you're contributing is to the benefit of a company that has no interest in sharing the data back with you if it's not a financial win for them? Because that's the reason I don't want to contribute: I can't even export my own changes in a standard format, let alone our collective contributions or even all data.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#558

Post by exhilaration »

gaius wrote: post #316
toyg wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Google usually spearheads a field, whereas Microsoft does that when they are catching up with existing leaders. One technique advances state of the art, the other leverages a monopoly to gain commercial advantages. "Regulators" only got involved with browsers, once. You can't use that as an excuse for all the subsequent blunders by MS management. Their big tech bet was tablets and PDAs and they…

The difference is that Google usually spearheads a field, whereas Microsoft does that when they are catching up with existing leaders In what way? Google didn't invent search, mail, banner ads... nor maps.

My friend, you must not have been around during the days we would print out directions from Mapquest before every trip. I remember when Google Maps was first announced, I sat there dragging the map around my screen and was amazed to see the tiles fill in. It was like nothing else at the time.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#559

Post by lucb1e »

allpratik wrote: post #552

What a beautifully detailed post is this! Incredible! Also, I do agree with generated AOI's, Google can leverage it for Waymo and their other products as well.

To be honest, at least when looking on my phone, I found it to be a little too detailed. A thousand examples of what we already know. In my head I was playing dramatized commentary: "Gee, the POIs are round but the areas are not, they're square. And they have been adding buildings. Oh boy, could they really? Yes indeed, they seem to be following building contours. My gosh, that is so smart! And look, here as well! And (gasp) another example here!"

Maybe I'm too much into openstreetmap and these things are normal to me, but "beautifully" detailed was not my experience. More like google fanboy showing off.

Re: Google Maps' Moat

#560

Post by lucb1e »

exikyut wrote: post #305
dannyw wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually edit it yourself and make a correction. A local guide community member will review it.

Oh. Thanks!

Note that you're contributing to a for-profit that has no interest in sharing this data back to you unless it's a financial win for them. If you want to contribute to a map that is open and free for everyone to use, like the Wikipedia of maps, I'd suggest OpenStreetMap. Its quality varies, but in the Netherlands and Germany it is often better than any commercial map. USA I have no idea.
Post reply on HN