Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Apple

Google Maps's Moat: How Far Ahead of Apple Maps is Google Maps? (justinobeirne.com) 174

Posted by msmash from the apple-to-oranges dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Over the past year, we've been comparing Google Maps and Apple Maps in New York, San Francisco, and London -- but some of the biggest differences are outside of large cities. That's a comprehensive comparison. Google Maps, unlike Apple Maps, doesn't stop at outlining the routes. It offers contextual details such as depiction of buildings and other structures and vegetation. It has captured everything -- from dish antennae on top of buildings to golf courses. Furthermore, Google Maps also shows name of the neighbourhood, and has more distinguishable icons and colors. You can glance at a portion of the map on Google Maps and get a good picture of what's in that place. Apple Maps, on the other hand, looks empty. Like an unfurnished house.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Maps's Moat: How Far Ahead of Apple Maps is Google Maps? More

Google Maps's Moat: How Far Ahead of Apple Maps is Google Maps?

Comments Filter:

  • Depends on how many features Google takes away (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:43AM (#55775415)

    Google maps was great... then they decide to take away features randomly that are extremely useful.

    At least Apple Maps is consistent.

    • Which ones? It's true that they keep on shuffling features around, but overall, I think that both Google Maps and Google Waze have been improving.

      • Re:Depends on how many features Google takes away (Score:4, Interesting)

        by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @12:59PM (#55777233)

        Waypoints, departure times from the app (iPhone at least), street view integration, several others that escape me. From Google, I now need Maps, Waze, Earth, and the frigging web site to get what used to all be in one place.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jrumney ( 197329 )
          Street view integration is still there. There is no longer an icon for it, but if you switch on satellite view and keep on zooming in, the final zoom level is street view.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hab136 ( 30884 )

            You don't even have to do that. Just drop a pin (either search for an address/name, or long-press on a road), and then a photo pops up in the corner, and you click on that to switch to street view.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Those things are still in the Android app. It's it just a limitation of the iOS version?

    • Google maps was great... then they decide to take away features randomly that are extremely useful.

      Can you give me three or four examples? Other than vaguely recalling that maybe they had an option for cycling directions that minimized routes with hills, I can't think of anything.

      (I think they've also gotten rid of 'joke' direction like "Swim across the Pacific Ocean" but I assume that was just he legal department wading it.)

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Old joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:44AM (#55775421)
    A man using Apple Maps walks into a bar, or a hotel, or possibly a church...
    • The best "joke" is probably Tim Cook replacing Google Maps with Apple Maps in 2012 as if the two apps were equally capable.

    • Re:Old joke (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @11:06AM (#55776095) Journal

      I haven't used Apple Maps for a while, but when they launched here it turned out that they'd bought maps from TomTom, who bought them from a company that they acquired in 1992 - and those maps hadn't been updated since. It was an interesting historical snapshot, and mostly buildings hadn't changed (a load of them have been here for the best part of 800 years, so only a few were obviously wrong), but a lot of pubs had changed names since then and so it was quite confusing.

      That said, last time I was near the Google Maps HQ, I had a look at Google Maps and OpenStreetMap and found that the OSM data was better. I mostly use OSMAnd for mapping - it's open source and stores offline vector maps and does offline routing (for car, pedestrian, and bicycle). I find the Google maps difficult to read - roads are only two colours, irrespective of type, and not the standard colours for a road atlas. About the only feature that Google Maps has that I'd like is live traffic data.

      I've just looked at Google Maps, and they do now have my house! I've been living here for over a year and it was built about a year before that. They don't, however, have the houses on the other three sides of the square (or, in fact, the roads for two sides). They also don't have the road that runs around the back of ours, or any of the 23 houses on those roads, or either of the blocks of flats. Oh, and the roads that they do have are in the wrong place and include a large road where there's now a block of flats, two small roads over a park, and one through someone's house. Now, compare that to OSM: They have all of the roads, house numbers for all of the houses and one of the blocks of flats, the footpath that cuts through one row of houses to the row begin, the park in the middle of the square, and the footpaths across the park. The other block is in a part that is marked as under construction, so I at least know that the map might be wrong (Google doesn't even appear to have any indication of construction work). We moved from around the corner and the Google Maps data there is weirdly wrong. It's as if they tried to draw a map by asking drunk people where things are: there are no gaps between buildings that have a driveway between them, there's a take-away at the wrong end of a row, and so on.

      Some of the buildings on Google Maps are extruded, but not consistently and they don't appear to have any correlation with the heights of the buildings (three story house: flat, 1-story shop next to it: extruded).

      • I haven't used Apple Maps for a while, but when they launched here it turned out that they'd bought maps from TomTom, who bought them from a company that they acquired in 1992 - and those maps hadn't been updated since. It was an interesting historical snapshot, and mostly buildings hadn't changed (a load of them have been here for the best part of 800 years, so only a few were obviously wrong), but a lot of pubs had changed names since then and so it was quite confusing.

        Oh it was far worse than that. They integrated the database just in the most screwed up way. I mean 1992 is old, but 2 days after it launched I was in Cairns which was founded in 1876, and yet somehow Google maps managed to place it 3000km away in the middle of the pacific ocean.

        I mean Apple has had some you're holding it wrong style bugs before, but this was the first product launch in the new premium Apple that made them an absolute laughing stock. Whole websites were dedicated to publishing stupid shit t

      • That said, last time I was near the Google Maps HQ, I had a look at Google Maps and OpenStreetMap and found that the OSM data was better.

        OSM data is very hit and miss. It's great in areas where there are a lot of contributors (or a few very dedicated contributors), and very weak elsewhere. Google Maps comes more from automated data collection systems and is more consistent (with big differences between areas that get regular low-altitude aerial imagery taken and those that don't). It makes perfect sense that it's great around Google HQ, because there are lots of geeky engineers regularly in that area, including many who are very interested i

        • I wonder if someone at Google read my post and prodded their system. In the few hours since I posted, they have now updated it so that there are roads. Unfortunately, they now place the road running through my kitchen (and my nextdoor neighbours' kitchens on both sides), rather than in front of my house. Their satellite data shows a building site, so it looks as if it's 18-24 months old.

          In the UK, the government (largely in response to pressure from OSM contributors) released the ordinance survey data

  • Apple Maps directions will lead you into a moat (Score:3)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:46AM (#55775443)
    Apple's map database is downright horrendous. It's almost like they intentionally want to mislead drivers as a practical joke.

    • Re:Apple Maps directions will lead you into a moat (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tk77 ( 1774336 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @10:32AM (#55775773)

      I guess it depends on where you use it. I had a party at a relatives house and Google Maps kept refusing to use their address correctly. Every time I entered it, it would change it to something else and put it on the same road, but opposite side of a park. Apple Maps accepted the address and correctly located it.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      More specifically, Apple seems to be way behind on AI. Much of the detail on Google maps is image recognition software looking at satellite photos and street view images. As TFA shows, Google uses that to fix all the mistakes that plague Apple Maps, as well as adding millions of buildings in great detail and information from street signs.

      Apple's other AI product, Siri, is crap too and way behind. They usually buy tech they need, maybe there is no one to buy.

    • I've seen other map software fail in major ways too. Take Waze for example. I was having it direct me to a large baseball park where we had a game. There is a 4 lane highway that passes over the park on a very long bridge. Waze took me onto that highway and at the point when we were crossing over the park on the bridge it said I had arrived. That was a pretty epic failure.

      Here's an image in case you care... http://1igh9a4a8a743z7yjj3tnc6... [netdna-cdn.com]

    • Apple's map database is downright horrendous. It's almost like they intentionally want to mislead drivers as a practical joke.

      Reminds of the comparison of Google to Bing yesterday. Google may have the best search engine and the best maps at the moment, but I sure am glad that they have competition to keep them on their toes. I'd hate to think how things would be today if they had NO real competition.

  • > Google Maps, unlike Apple Maps, doesn't simply outline the routes. It offers insane details, including depicting buildings and other structures and vegetation. It has captured everything

    Stop there, don't kick a man when he is down.

  • "Apple Maps, on the other hand, looks empty. Like an unfurnished house."

    But at least all the rooms are easily connected.

  • OpenStreetMap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Max_W ( 812974 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @09:58AM (#55775513)
    I use OpenStreetMap http://www.osm.org/ [osm.org] . It is kind of Wikipedia approach to mapping.

    By the way, I use this web application to view Wikipedia articles on the OSM map: http://ausleuchtung.ch/geo_wik... [ausleuchtung.ch] . It works for all language versions of Wikipedia, and to view hotels, supermarkets, etc. this one: http://ausleuchtung.ch/travel_... [ausleuchtung.ch]

    • I also use OSM (and I recommend the OSMAND app on my Android devices).

      I have also done some GIS work and poured over the OSM data in excruciating detail (covering all road segments in an area over a million square kilometers).

      DO NOT rely on OSM data, especially anywhere outside a major urban center - the data quality is extremely poor in places. I've seen incorrect street names, and even worse I've seen the correct street name but on the wrong street (I'd rather know there's a problem by being unable to fi

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Max_W ( 812974 )
        I saw quite a few errors at the commercial maps too. What is worse, I could not correct them quickly or at all. An edit review takes weeks. Sometimes I just leave an error alone. Though, I could edit the OSM map and correct almost any error in real time.

        At the OSM I can record a GPS/GLONASS track while driving, cycling, or walking, and publish it. So it is visible later. It is especially useful in mountains or remote areas, where either there is no satellite imagery, or a path is not visible.

        • >I saw quite a few errors at the commercial maps too. What is worse, I could not correct them quickly or at all. An edit review takes weeks.

          Been there, done that. Worse, I've been standing right next to the street sign while on the phone with the map data vendor, with them telling me I'm wrong and the map data is correct!

          >, I could edit the OSM map and correct almost any error in real time.

          The problem is this is corrective action, not preventative. When you're going somewhere out of the way for the

      • OSM is notorious for not marking one way streets, either. I don't think that information is in the TIGER [census.gov] data they started from, so it required people to manually update.

    • Is there an app for this?

      • OsmAnd http://osmand.net/ [osmand.net] is a great Android & iOS app for Open Street Map. Tons of features and layers like hill-shades and contour lines make it great for hiking as well.

        Maps.me https://maps.me/download/ [maps.me] is a really pretty app that uses Open Street Map data. It is less customizable than OsmAnd, but more user-friendly.

        I've also enjoyed using the Mapfactor Navigator app when driving https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com] . It gives a nice 3D view which I can't get with OsmAnd.

        There are many more as well, but

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The next big thing for mapping is what Google has done - use AI image recognition to add details from satellite photos. Most of the buildings on Google maps are from satellite photos, for example.

      Not sure how OSM can do that but it's the only realistic way to build up that much data. AI and drones?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MSG ( 12810 )

      I've found that, for the places where I spend the most time, OSM is amazingly detailed and accurate compared to Google Maps. UW campus for instance, where foot paths are much better mapped in OSM:

      https://www.openstreetmap.org/... [openstreetmap.org]

      https://www.google.com/maps/@4... [google.com]

      Judging the two by the specific criteria laid out by the submitter, OSM appears to have the advantage.

  • Apple doesn't care about it's maps anyway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dallas May ( 4891515 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @10:01AM (#55775527)
    Apple's maps were only ever intended to act as an insurance policy if Steve Job's thermonuclear war with Google got Google Maps removed from the App Store. That happened for a short time, but now it's back and things have cooled significantly since 2012 on the patent war. Navigation is as much a minimum expectation of a smartphone now as email is. It was only ever developed at all to ensure there would always be maps available for the iPhone. In the event that Google removes Maps from the App Store, Apple will immediately make new, immediate, and significant investments in their program. Until then, they don't care.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How quickly history becomes vague.

      'Maps' as bundled with iOS has always been an Apple-written app. Between iPhone OS 1.0 and iOS 5 it used Google Maps data. When iOS 6 was released, a rewritten Maps app was bundled using map data from Apple and other non-Google third-parties.

      Google first released their own Google Maps app for iOS several months after iOS 6 was released. This is why there was a short time where you couldn't use a mapping app on iOS powered by Google's map data.

      It was never about Apple or Goo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jaa101 ( 627731 )

        Whether it was Apple or Google who made the early iOS map app isn't really relevant though. That it worked well relied on quality map data and when Apple stopped using Google's data the quality became barely acceptable. Sure, Apple didn't have to worry about Google pulling an app, because the app was Apple's, but they still needed to worry about Google pulling the data.

        Apple's map still feels bad enough that it seems very plausible that it's just an insurance policy against any future escalation of the Ap

    • This seems to be a common thing for Apple and Microsoft too.
      If they have a partner offering a Good Product they will make a version for themselves, just in case such partnership goes south, they will not be short of such a tool or feature.
      Sometimes their version evolve directly competes with the other product and sometimes it stays as the inferior product.

      When Windows 95 was released, Microsoft really wasn't in competition with Netscape. IE was To Netscape as Wordpad was to Word, Enough to do the job but n

    • The new Apple Maps was proudly announced by Cook in 2012, and it happened to be a total disaster. It seems that what made initially the success of the iPhone takes today the same disastrous path.

    • Apple's maps were only ever intended to act as an insurance policy if Steve Job's thermonuclear war with Google got Google Maps removed from the App Store. That happened for a short time, but now it's back and things have cooled significantly since 2012 on the patent war. Navigation is as much a minimum expectation of a smartphone now as email is. It was only ever developed at all to ensure there would always be maps available for the iPhone. In the event that Google removes Maps from the App Store, Apple will immediately make new, immediate, and significant investments in their program. Until then, they don't care.

      My personal experience is that Google maps have actually increased in information, but decreased in quality for turn by turn navigation. First of all, the damn app never stops talking. Sometimes going on a 2-3 minute spiel at the start of a trip. And I've also noticed that it sometimes fails to give me a turn notification even though I can look down and see that the map knows exactly where I am supposed to be. And then it'll randomly decide that I am no longer where it thinks I am and start recalculating

  • Navigation Apple Maps can be invoked with your voice using Siri, without having to touch the device. Very useful in the car (and frustrating that it's limited to Apple Maps).

    This is its biggest advantage over Google Maps (for iPhone users). And despite it solely being an artificial limitation, as we've seen with other historical instances of software bundling, it will prove to be very advantageous to Apple.

    • And you can do the same thing on Android, with "OK Google". Of course, for every person using Siri for navigation on iOS, there is probably 7 or more [statista.com] doing the same thing on Android, so... And I know several people who use Google Maps on iOS - and none the other way, so the ratio is probably even greater in terms of map domination.
    • Unfortunately, CarPlay is why I've had to start using Apple Maps. I still prefer Google Maps, especially their instructions as to when to turn seem to more naturally concur when my brain is making those determinations. I don't know how many times I've said 'oh, you want me to turn here!?' to Apple Maps. But to use my fancy dashboard in my truck, I have to use the previously mention artificial limitation they impose and go with Apple Maps. I am happy with my iPhone otherwise, so it sticks out even more t

  • Apple maps... (Score:3)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday December 20, 2017 @10:09AM (#55775597) Journal
    A man was walking in the park with his wife. Suddenly he took his cap off, and his wife asked, "why?". He said, "According to Apple Maps, I am smack bang dang in the middle of First Presbyterian".
  • When I move from point A to point B, II don't care if there are antennas on the roofs of the buildings prospecting the road you travel through, or if there is a dentist in the middle of my journey. I simply want a no-frills, clearly understandable map (that by the way in my case is displayed on the screen of a iPhone SE placed at about one meter from my eyes).
    In our family we have a iPhone, a Windows 8 phone, and an Android tablet. The tablet through Google maps gives the most detailed description of the t

    • That's what you got from this? Maps is not a single use-case for getting directions. Ok, the extra data Google has is not important to you (yet), I think slow rendering is more of an implementation problem than coming to the conclusion that the rest of that data is a detriment.

      • The article describes how awesome Google Maps is because it's showing you fans on top of a skyscraper.

        On a roof you will never see, and cannot access.

        So please, do tell us all why that extra detail is useful in any way, or will be ever before the end of time.

        Same goes for sheds in the back of a house I'm driving in front of. It's just more visual detail my mind has to decide does not matter, so why even show it?

    • When I move from point A to point B, II don't care if there are antennas on the roofs of the buildings prospecting the road you travel through, or if there is a dentist in the middle of my journey.

      You're cherry picking. You may not want all the details, but having some details definitely helps. Such as if you're currently driving along side an inhabited area, a public park, a lake, or how big the buildings are when you're looking for your destination. That kind of thing can mean the difference between not knowing if you're looking for the 70th house on a street, or if there's just one big building with 70 apartments. That stuff is kind of critical when going from A to B.

  • I've found google maps and Apple maps to be at two ends of the timing spectrum on giving directions:

    Google: Turn left in 1 mile... Turn left in half a mile... turn left in 1/4 mile... Turn left in 500 feet... Turn left in 100 feet... Turn left

    Apple: Turn left in 10 miles... Turn left at the intersection you are now already halfway through.

    Both are really annoying in their own way, and a happy medium needs to be found. However, I give Google the win on this because I don't miss turns when Google maps is d

  • I'm a long time Google Apps on iPhone user. Mainly because I can facetime family members with iPhones/Pads and also use Hangouts for those with Android. However, I'm forced to use Apple Maps in the car because Apple Car doesn't allow you to run Google Maps for the in-dash integration.

    Argh. What a pain in the ass. Atleast in v11, Apple introduced lane specific directions, and yes Apple maps is much more improved than previous versions, but it still seems way behind Google Maps.

    I'd much rather use Waze of

  • Well, if you're going to have a map of Ladd, Illinois, it would behoove you to clearly mark Rip's Tavern, home of the best fried chicken in the state [chicagotribune.com].

    You really don't want to have hangry folks wandering about, desperately looking for their fried chicken fix. Google knows better than that...

  • I can't really comment since the article looked to me like a "sorry, Firefox has crashed" message. I caught a brief glimpse of blinking maps before the crash, but two attempts led to two crashes so I guess they don't want the article to be read on an Android tablet. Fortunately for me I feel absolutely no sense of loss from not being able to read it and proceed happily along with the rest of my life. Incidentally, I have both apple and android phones and have not had any trouble with either of them giving m

  • My subdivision was built 7 years age. Two years ago it showed up on Apple Maps, but is stilll missing from Google Maps. The funny thing is that street view for the area is up to date, but wonâ(TM)t let you navigate into the street, just look down it. I did notify Google but nothing happened. Havenâ(TM)t seen us appear on a car GPS yet either. This is in rural British Columbia.

  • Looking at the examples, Apple Maps may look a bit emptier because they do not have building shapes.

    But what if you are driving? If you are driving, emptier is better. In fact that is one of the things I've liked about Apple Maps since launch, is that when driving it's a MUCH easier map to look at compared to Google Maps. It shows you important things, not meaningless trivia like which houses have bay windows.

    I don't see what the complete building shapes really do for you in a residential area unless you

  • Having never used either one, I can't specifically comment on their differences. However, I'll remind people that the purpose of maps for navigation is not to see all of that detail at all. It is specifically to focus on the navigation required, by removing all of that added information.

    I simply want to know which turns to make. I don't want my map to show me all of the great things that I'm passing -- I've chosen to pass on all of them to reach my destination. Same word for a reason.

    Even more important

  • I was in Hawaii recently, we use both Apple Maps and Google Maps while driving around. Google Maps will send you down some weird route to save you a few minutes. Some regular streets that were so small I had to move to the side to let cars going the opposite way pass. Apple Maps would recommend staying on the major streets. But Apple Maps suck when it came to finding a business in a business complex. Both Google Maps and Apple Maps will tell you to make left turns or U turns at intersections that don’

  • That's a comprehensive comparison. Google Maps, unlike Apple Maps, doesn't stop at outlining the routes. It offers contextual details such as depiction of buildings and other structures and vegetation. It has captured everything -- from dish antennae on top of buildings to golf courses. Furthermore, Google Maps also shows name of the neighbourhood, and has more distinguishable icons and colors. You can glance at a portion of the map on Google Maps and get a good picture of what's in that place. Apple Maps, on the other hand, looks empty. Like an unfurnished house.

    How the hell is that a "comprehensive" comparison? All the entire article does is focus on how pretty the maps are.

    I care that the app can get me to my destination. I care that the app can warn me about traffic congestion and help me route around that. I want an accurate list of businesses in the area I happen to be viewing. I do *not* care that the map has a well rendered maple tree or 2.5d buildings. It looks cool, sure, but it's still just fluff.

    So which maps app handles the genuinely *important* st

  • Google Maps is basically in an entire other category when compared to everything else, for good or bad.

    Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but it's just how I face it.
    You don't need to be a Google fan, Apple hater or whatever to realize this.
    Apple has not invested as much time and money on mapping, nor have any other initiatives like HERE maps, etc.

    To put it more simply, Apple Maps is just a service or an app from Apple for navigation. Google Maps represents an entire business division of Alphabet or something that

Slashdot Top Deals

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Close