Road colours are wrong too
It really is rubbish when they've got A roads in yellow and B roads in white. WTF?!
Apple today faced the ire of thousands of irritated iOS 6 users who upgraded to the new version of the iDevice operating system only to discover the Cupertino's new Maps app is, well, pants. As we noted in our review of iOS 6 yesterday, Apple dropped Google's mapping system in favour of one of its own. The result is an …
It really is rubbish when they've got A roads in yellow and B roads in white. WTF?!
They didn't include NFC because "it wasn't ready for prime time" but let it ship with this shit? Steve Jobs was a hypocritical thief, but at least he had standards - he'd either have stuck with Google until ready or pulled it all completely. He'd never have let this ship.
I'd say give it a month for the first batch to get out, then watch the real reviews as the backlash begins and the iSheep realise they've been screwed again and have to wait another full year till they get to even last years Android levels of functionality.
This news means those of us that really use the maps can sit back on v5 until the Google App is released.
"One iPad owner who uses Google Maps for close-up viewing of archaeological sites said: 'With iOS 5, I had generally very good resolution, colour imagery of ancient sites, enough to see features not readily seen on the ground. Now the resolution is lower, so I can't zoom in to examine a feature so closely as before, and many areas are presented in black and white.'"
Using an iPad for viewing archaeological sites?
He never said he was an archaeologist.
He might be an archaeology student in which case he can see sites from all around the world. Or he might just be an enthusiast with a passion for history.
I think the problem is in the wording of the article. Aerial photography is used extensively in identifying possible sites. For instance, there is often a noticeable difference between the shading of crops where there is something underneath. These patterns are very hard to see from the ground, but much easier to spot from above.
Villages outside South of Chester all missing!
> 13 TDs?
17 now, including mine.
What exactly is your fucking problem?
All English Welsh border villages missing outside Chester.
So, oh wise and intelligent one, what would you suggest someone uses for viewing Google-provided aerial imagery if they were interested in the archaeological uses of said imagery? When giving your answer, bear in mind that the user may want to view this imagery out in the field (literally), not just sat in the comfort of their home/office.
He's a charming one isn't he? Far from being the domain of people with shit for brains, aerial archeology is widely used for locating buried features that are not visible from the ground, and is a technique that even predates the invention of the aeroplane.
As for Google maps, only last year about 2,000 potential archaeological sites in Saudi Arabia were identified by a chap using Google Earth.
Sorry, the Daily Mail's second on the left down the hall. Do close the door behind you.
56 TDs and counting :D
What's the record?
Charming: definitely not, but as an archaeologist I'm not going to vote shagbag down because he's sort of right. Certainly in temperate climes, commercial aerial photography is often ill-suited to archaeological sites because there is often a fairly small window of time to get a good snap of crop or soil marks. Low raking light, a light dusting of snow just on the melt, rainfall that happened a few hours or days before, just the right time after planting of certain cereal crops, are all good times to pick out the very subtle variations in soil and crop colour and drainage, but these conditions are generally not flown by commercial units when their brief is to capture a district or county - at least not deliberately.
It is also very inefficient to scroll around aerial photography on the off-chance of finding an anomaly that hasn't already been recorded, with a view to excavating it. The closest process that is used is one of inference: watchtower A is here and watchtower C is here, they're not intervisible, so putative watchtower B is probably somewhere here. But assuming permission and funding have been obtained, using an iPad on site to look at commercial photography would get you laughed off site, or at least accused of not doing your research beforehand.
I mean, with new Apple Maps, you have 28% more charge in your battery.
Yep... comes in very handy when you get LOST!!!!
I know you're joking there, but from watching the video there are some things that I prefer:
1) The navigation doesn't incessantly babble more instructions than necessary. I have used Google Navigation in Leeds and got to the point where I was shouting at my phone in the car and turning the air blue. Silencing the phone solved the problem, but it's not a secret these days that giving a driver excess information on a sat nav doesn't help and causes stress.
2) The navigation allows you to choose from alternative routes when you start.
While these are good points, I don't believe Steve Jobs would have let the product out in it's current form of readiness.
You can choose alternative routes with Google Maps Navigation. It's just not particularly obvious, and I can't remember how you do it now.
... Feeling lost? Join owners of Apple iOS6 devices at Manchester United Football Club - just search for it on the new Google-free Apple Maps app and follow the directions given...
Feeling lost? Join owners of Apple iOS6 devices at Sale United Football Club, all wandering about trying to find Old Trafford stadium after they followed the directions from Maps...
Will Apple to perform a legal U-turn when possible over this? Nah, cos it's run by blokes... ;-)
@HMB When you "used Google navigation in Leeds" was is as good as this? http://goo.gl/amB1g
You go to directions > get directions > direction list/route list something like that > menu option route options > avoid m fucking 1
@Bob Vistakin "was is as good as this? http://goo.gl/amB1g"
Hahaha, no it was really pretty competent. :)
I had NO anti-android or "grass is greener" sentiment to my earlier message. I just acknowledge good ideas when I see them, no matter where they come from.
Someone else earlier said that Navigate did offer alternative routes, I never said it didn't. I just mentioned I liked them being options at the start.
Navigate never used to try and feed you info you didn't need, it was better when it just gave you the vitals. Going through Leeds, it was telling me what was coming up next at really inappropriate times.
What make you think Apple will allow their customers to become Google's customers by letting them download the enemies mapping app. The whole point of bringing out Apple maps is to demonstrate who owns which customers.
Certainly Apple have past form for refusing to allow apps that duplicate functions already on the phone. I wonder if they might invoke that clause to block a Google Maps native app?
I wonder what blocking would mean given that there are a large number of satnav apps on the iPhone too. How do you block access to google's service without blocking the others too and provoking an uproar?
Perhaps Apple believe that by the power of default will allow them to fix their crappy content over time or most users are so ignorant that they won't even notice the difference.
Can't you just use it in the web-browser? I can on iOS5, I even get a little popup "Install this web app". Apple cannot keep it off even if they want to.
they could ban the app from their store and pretty much won't let you install it less phone is unlocked. sadly its something apple would do, i put money on it
There're loads of nav apps and even Google Earth already in the App Store.
The maps app sucks still.
According to this article, the last thing Google Maps does is duplicate functions already on the phone.
Hmm....didn't Microsoft get hit with an Antitrust suit for bundling IE with Windows?
I am not sure what the difference is here?
Microsoft got hit with an antitrust suit for using its monopoly position in one market to distort competition in another. Specifically it used its desktop monopoly to kill Netscape.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly position in the phone market. Apple's inclusion of a different mapping app isn't going to kill Google. Indeed Apple's market share in the maps market is going to remain minuscule compared to that of Google Maps.
For the record, Apple argues that the licence with Google ran out. It probably did but something tells me they didn't try very hard to negotiate an extension.
Android has had turn by turn navigation for years. It's had 3D maps for well over a year. Yet when this was announced with iOS6 the crowd of iSheep all ooohed and ahhhed like it was up there with rounded corners.
Just look again at the video - it takes brainwashing to a whole new level. Every one in the audience is for some reason pretending they are totally unaware of there being literally nothing new here:
The problem was that Google weren't going to let Apple use their data to do turn-by-turn navigation. They were also no going to let them use vector data, cache map data etc. It was Google who forced Apple to move, and for a version 1 product they haven't done a bad job.
As for things like satellite imagery, Google Earth is still available in the App Store, you can still see that.
Public transport navigation is still somewhat lacking, but the idea that you can plug in specialised apps seems a good one.
> and for a version 1 product they haven't done a bad job.
The problem with being an OK version 1, is that the rest of the world is now on polished v9 so you still look like a rant beginner.
I have no idea of the exact circumstances preventing the iOS-version of Google Maps being upgraded properly (turn-by-turn, data caching being the most useful things), but it seems clear that the primary mapping application for iOS absolutely needs these features.
Either Apple weren't willing to pay Google enough, or Google weren't willing to cede a competitive advantage that Android has over iOS, or some combination, or an argument in a toilet. Who cares? It's irrelevant, iOS needs a primary mapping app with up to date features, and so Apple had little choice once / if negotiations broke down.
I'm no apologist, but the facts are that Apple have been investing in mapping technology and companies for years now (google search will throw up many results), and as a consumer I'm happy to see competition to established players.
But it is a V1, and not a very good one - they have a huge amount of catching up to do, and given the much more closed nature (Gmaps has become so good partly as a result of independent contributors), they may find this difficult. Perhaps they should have just coughed up...
Sorry, quote some reputable sources or STFU. I've heard nothing about Google forcing Apple to stop using Google Maps and I've been following the iOS mapping story for some time. Google has poured tons of money into Maps and everything it supports - Apple can't expect to stand up even 10% of that functionality inside a year.
I can believe that Google wanted too much money for turn by turn. And I can absolutely believe that they don't want to allow caching offline - a fantastic feature in the Android app.
Apple chose to move for a variety of reasons, and iDevices are the poorer for it. This is simply fallout from The Patent Wars. Live with it or get a more advanced phone like a Galaxy S3 or Galaxy Nexus!
That's what gets me. They're replicating functions everyone including their own users already have, but even just going "we have a map of Paris" makes the audience go "ooooooo!, aaahhhh!".
I don't care about turn by turn. I don't care about caching. I've got a perfectly good Garmin for that, it cost me about 90 euro and covers Western Europe offline, with TMC to boot. I'm using an iPhone and will continue to do so, but I do agree that the new Maps app is shite. The main reason : I've lost Street View... and I used that A LOT. So much that it might be a deal breaker. If Google chooses not to release a maps app for iOS I might even go to the dark side, though then I would have to deal with the crappy EAS implementation on Android (which means completely resetting your phone every couple of months).
Version 1 of Google Maps was better. Google wanted to be on the Iphone but apple kicked them off. AFAIK Google would have been happy for Iphones to have all their features but Apple wouldn't pay the license fees. Using an API for free is harder than using FRAND patents without paying.
"Winston, how many fingers do I have up?"
And it all started so well ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R706isyDrqI
I watched that clip for some laughs and found the crowd enjoying some features that google maps don't show ME
Maybe the audience actually were impressed. Okay, from what I've seen this is definitely not as good as Google's service and may not be for some time (another year? another two years? three?). But still, it's hugely impressive to create something like this. In amongst all the slating of Apple that is going on here, it's worth remembering how hard it is to compete with Google on their maps at all. It's good that they made this. It keeps competition in the market and being a programmer myself, I can see that this must have taken a lot of work.
because you are on IOS 6.
after watching the video you linked to, I followed a related video which is called "15 funny apple ads". The video is posted on June 2007, the 3rd ad show the PC guy calling the Windows bundled application as "apps".
I don't know when the ad was made and/or aired. But will this ad affect the "App Store" trail?
They make it impossible for Apple to use the data for turn-by-turn navigation, cache any of the data etc.
Then factor in the fact that Google have been putting the costs up significantly
Google were making their turn-by-turn navigation, vectorised maps etc a USP of Android. You honestly think Apple were happy with that and couldn't be bothered to update their maps client to use the new data?
The new Maps app seems to be fairly solid, all the problems are with DATA, and the data lives in the cloud where it can be updated and fixed without users having to download or fix anything.
And one of the very first things it says in the terms and conditions link that you posted is "Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Google, the Terms will include the following:", i.e. you can't do caching etc. with the standard license. There's nothing that says you can't negotiate with Google and pay them for different terms.
So, the question once more becomes, what proof is offered that Apple tried to do so and that Google were unwilling to allow them to do so? It is certainly conceivable that Google were unwilling to co-operate or wanted to charge Apple "too much", but other explanations are equally plausible, not the least that Apple were determined to drop Google at any cost, up to and including shipping the turkey of an app that is in iOS 6.