
Get the Fainting Chair - shawndumas
http://daringfireball.net/2012/09/get_the_fainting_chair
======
ZeroGravitas
I think Gruber said it best:

 _"I don’t understand why so many reviewers bend over backwards to grade these
things on a curve. If Google or Nokia Maps had the problems and deficiencies
the Apple Maps have, these same reviewers would (rightly) trash it, and
declare (again, rightly) that Google had finally lost its touch.

These aren’t “beta” maps. They’re bad maps. It’s that simple. It’s true that
their presentation seems closer to Google-caliber than their data, but
improving the data is the hardest part of making maps like these. By the time
Apple releases “a serious update or three” the entire market will have
changed. The truth is, Apple has released a would-be Google Maps competitor
that pales compared to Google Maps. Just say it.

The mass market doesn’t buy, and doesn’t want to buy, products based on what
they might become months from now if these companies somehow dramatically
improve the software. They buy products for what they are today, out of the
box. Google and Nokia are Apple’s industry peers. These are the big leagues,
this is The Show. They’re charging customers real money to buy these things.
They should be judged by the same standards."_

Of course, he wasn't actually talking about Apple maps then so he didn't try
quite so hard to see it from their point of view.

[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/04/21/mccracken-
beta-h...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/04/21/mccracken-beta-
hardware)

~~~
tptacek
This article has nothing to do with "grading" Apple maps.

But, OK, everyone! Turn off your brains! It's a Gruber article; all we're
going to talk about is Gruber!

~~~
ZeroGravitas
No, but if it had been a competitors product it would have been graded, and
harshly. But instead it's an Apple product that's clearly a bit rubbish so we
get some meandering drivel about how they were forced to do this for the
greater good and Google is smart and evil but also incompetent and ignorant,
and Apple is noble, pure and selfless for foisting half-baked maps on its
users. Because a phone constantly reporting your position back to Apple so it
can build maps and sell phones is so much less creepy than doing so to help
Google build maps and sell ads.

~~~
tptacek
The point you're making has nothing to do with the article. The article isn't
"meandering drivel"; it's a summary of actual reporting on what led Apple to
make the decision it did.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Oh come on, who's turned off their brain now? His job is writing apologia for
Apple. Apple messed up. It's his job to spin it to suit his readership's
preconcieved ideas (and then sell ads to them).

~~~
tptacek
None of this has anything to do with the article either.

Here is a hint: you can read this entire article, believe everything Gruber
says, and still believe Maps is a debacle.

------
emn13
That analysis sounds like nonsense.

His options #1 and #3 are a false and (and misleading) dichotomy. (#1 being
continue as is, and #3 being cut the cord)

Of _course_ apple wants to ship its own mapping stuff once it can. But there's
no reason it can't continue as-is _until_ their own stuff is done.

So Gruber's claiming some kind obviousness here which is based entirely on the
fiction that there was no middle ground. Based on his analysis of decisions
made by people he can't even name and certainly doesn't know, he so confident
in this that he insinuates that Google (and of course Apple) would have come
to the same conclusion, thus that Google is lying about being suprised.

I think that's reading _waaaayy_ to much into all this. Never attribute to
malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Of course google
expected apple to do this _at some point_. The surprising part is that they
did it so early, when their own stuff is hardly done, when the alternative
(wait a little longer) has so few apparent downsides.

------
tptacek
I find it a little baffling the amount of animus Apple's mapping has generated
on HN. The alternative to Apple doing their own mapping was to continue
relying on Google. How is it not a great thing that Apple is competing with
them on this? Don't we need _more_ well capitalized global mapping
infrastructure?

~~~
Locke1689
I have only one rule regarding my technology purchases: it has to work. Apple
maps don't, so no iPhone for me. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by
animus.

~~~
tptacek
Not at all! If Apple's maps don't work for you, that strikes me as a very good
reason not to buy an iPhone. I might even go so far as to suggest that
"reasons not to buy an iPhone" are a good thing; the whole market could use
more competition.

It's the "Apple has made a terrible irresponsible mistake" stuff that confuses
me.

Incidentally, where are you that Apple's maps don't work for you? I'm in
Chicago and they work better for me than the old one did.

~~~
Locke1689
I recently moved from Chicago to Seattle, but I rarely like to drive in
Seattle so transit directions are essential for me.

Edit: What were your problems with Google maps in Chicago? I remember it was
kind of stupid sometimes (e.g., it would tell me to take the pink line 3
blocks and transfer instead of just walking three blocks and getting on the
red line), but I don't remember them being inaccurate.

~~~
tptacek
You don't think maybe not baking in transit was a _good_ move? Allows space
for companies to build apps with transit as a real focus?

~~~
Locke1689
That depends. First, if they had worked with a company prior to release that
makes some sense, however I really need access now, not in 6 months.

In addition, I often feel that public transit and walking directions go hand-
in-hand. I would be willing to see someone try to separate them, but I'm
skeptical of the user experience.

------
adambratt
I feel like I'm one of the few people that really likes the new mapping in
iOS6. Granted I don't live on a college campus nor do I travel to rural areas
often. The 9 or 10 times I've used the navigation so far it's been flawless.

I used to have a Droid Incredible and the navigation in iOS6 is far better in
my opinion. The GPS seems to be a bit more accurate and the map UI just seems
cleaner as well.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Have you tried a recent version of Google Maps on Android? It has improved a
lot over the last couple of years.

~~~
shawnc
As will Apple Maps in a few years. Good to have some decent alternatives out
there. I know, people will argue with me that Apple is the evil one here...

~~~
Karunamon
Hmm, mature, tested, and working platform _now_ , or broken and weak platform
which _may_ be better "in a few years".

Difficult decision.

~~~
shawnc
It's odd to me that Google was allowed to go through growing pains, but
another company attempting to do the same be criticized for it. Seriously -
would you expect Google to make a different decision if the roles were
reversed?

Re: your reply below. Well, that I believe. It had better be since it's had
those years to perfect itself. And I can understand why people would be
unhappy with the switch away from Google Maps on iOS - if it were as good as
that on Android. Which is wasn't, and sounds like would have been an ordeal to
make it so. Google didn't make the app, Apple did. Why put the effort into
perfecting the Google Maps app, when they could put that same (more obviously)
effort into perfecting their own?

~~~
problemdomain
Google Maps was not rolled out to a hundred million preexisting devices in an
abysmal state to replace a working solution, and for its entire existence has
competed in a landscape where it has had major advantages over competitors,
either on the basis of quality, or on the basis of price.

If I crafted a questionable replica of Windows 3.11 and went out and installed
it on a hundred million computers that had been running Windows 7, would you
defend me because Microsoft had to go through growing pains, too?

"Apple Maps" is late to the party, and forgot its clothes. Why be surprised at
the response?

------
bryanlarsen
I think the explanation goes more like this: Google took a look at the maps
shipped with the beta version of iOS6 and though to themselves "There's no way
that Apple can bring this up to Apple quality software in 3 months, we've got
lots of time to ready our replacement". They were right about the first part,
but wrong about the second.

------
andrewcooke
i went searching for more info as i don't know much about all this, and found

 _Apple is actually responsible for building the app, which is why so few of
the many advancements that have come to Google Maps on Android_

at <http://fury.com/2012/06/wills-and-wonts-at-WWDC-2012/>

which no-one else seems to be mentioning (the implication seems to be that
google made the ios app crappy on purpose, which the above seems to
contradict).

~~~
ceejayoz
Without knowing the details of the Apple-Google contract, it's still hard to
say. It's entirely possible that Google forbade use of directions for turn-by-
turn navigation in it.

~~~
tptacek
That is what the WSJ reported.

~~~
jws
I believe when the original contract was put in place, Google was licensing
their street data from one of the GPS incumbents with a "no turn by turn"
restriction. It was only later that Google made their own street data and
could offer turn by turn. In that light, it makes sense that Apple's contract
had the restriction.

------
jonny_eh
Oh Gruber, all that analysis and your little footnote strikes me as the most
likely explanation.

------
dfc
_"More Google branding, less user privacy."_

I highly doubt user privacy was one of the reasons Apple chose this path. Does
anyone have any corroborating evidence for this claim? I can imagine they did
not want to share user data in order to retain a competitive advantage but I
have trouble believing it was in the interest of preserving user privacy.

------
jws
Imagine an alternate reality where Apple released the Map program with google-
grade road and POI[1] data, perhaps even pictures of Scotland that show
something other than clouds[2]…

Wouldn't every map app maker cry foul and whine (perhaps with the mouths of
lawyers) about Apple using their incumbent (pronounced "monopoly" by lawyers)
position to put them out of business?

By launching with sad POI data[3] they enter the map market as the underdog,
or at least that cute three legged dog. Virtual immunity from an antitrust
meme on the internet. In a couple months they could have a "look how great
they are now" meme instead.

Remember what Coca-Cola's president, Donald Keough, said about introducing
"New Coke" just to have it reviled and drive people more firmly to Coca-Cola
Classic: _The truth is we are not that dumb, and we are not that smart._

EOM

[1] POI is arguably the easiest part of mapping if you have tens of millions
of people to enter corrections.

[2] Clouds over Scotland is fixed by writing a couple checks to imagery
companies and running your source blender program again.

[3] Without exception, the POI location failures I'm seeing are because the
data is wrong in Yelp. Reporting to Apple didn't yield a quick response,
reporting to Yelp got it changed in Yelp, but it is still wrong in Maps. It
remains to be seen how frequently Apple will update.

------
vondur
The link to the melted bridge is pretty darn funny. I agree with his premise
about the maps, Google Maps in iOS lags the Android version pretty badly.
Gotta do what you gotta do I suppose...

------
lnanek2
Seems pretty good situation for Google that most of my closest friends with
iPhones are decrying the loss of Google Maps due to Apple. One person I met
even swore she would not upgrade to iOS 6 until GMaps is available. Google can
now step in and play the hero, having netted a ton of good grass roots PR for
their solution. Just because users are pissed and press is loving a story
doesn't mean some company isn't benefiting from that.

~~~
brk
There is also the possibility that Apple truly _wants_ the full Google Maps
experience on iOS. However, if they bundle it in, then they could be perceived
as leaking more user data. But if Google releases the app, and users have to
consciously install it, they can't blame Apple (well, they _might_ blame Apple
unfairly) for violating their privacy or the overall spirit of iOS.

------
melvinmt
> But all three of those options came with a heavy price.

Maybe for Apple Inc, but a better Google Maps app (#2) isn't a "heavy price"
for the user.

~~~
tptacek
My guess is you read Gruber's summary of the WSJ story but didn't take the
time to read the WSJ story itself. Google refused to provide Apple with turn-
by-turn. Turn-by-turn is a huge win for users.

~~~
melvinmt
No I didn't read the WSJ article (just tried it, but there's a paywall) but
from what I understand from this article is that they were willing to add more
features (incl. turn-by-turn) in exchange for more "branding" as John Gruber
puts it.

~~~
tptacek
No, the WSJ reported that they were not, and the quote you're taking from
Gruber's article is based on that WSJ article.

------
abcd_f
Don't care for what he's got to say. Not anymore. He lost me at "rotating
pedestal smoothly rising from the stage floor" in his iPhone 5 post. If it
wasn't obvious whose paycheck he was on before, it became pretty damn clear
after that.

------
psychotik
Assuming it was acceptable to both parties, why wasn't it possible to add
turn-by-turn capability to the existing Google-powered app and ship that
instead? Is this something that couldn't have been done without major changes?

~~~
adambratt
I think this is what point #2 covered.

Google was willing to add in more functionality but only if Apple would give
them an increased amount of branding. Apple didn't want to answer to Google so
they decided to build their own.

~~~
masklinn
> Google was willing to add in more functionality

 _may have been_ willing and to _let apple access_. The application itself was
never under Google control, only under Google API restrictions.

~~~
rimantas
which forbid turn-by-turn navigation, iirc.

~~~
masklinn
Indeed, and vector maps. Hence the need for getting access to more stuff.

------
cookiecaper
Please, this guy. He defends Apple as if it were a deity. I don't think I've
ever seen a truly substantial criticism of Apple come out of him. Do we really
believe that Apple is infallible?

It makes sense for Apple to seek liberation from Google's chokehold on Maps,
and to make plans to deploy this when it was ready. So, out of his extremely
malformed recounting of Apple's available options, choice #3 _is_ the best in
the long term, but it's not the best choice _right now_ , when Apple's in-
house version is leading people down dead-ends into wooded areas when they're
almost out of gas
([http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/31930446388/neithe...](http://theamazingios6maps.tumblr.com/post/31930446388/neither-
of-those-exist-the-bottom-one-is-in-a)) and doing similarly perilous things
all the time. This should be blatantly obvious to everyone.

iPhone would continue to thrive even with less featureful maps support. The
addition of Latitude would not be an invasion of privacy as Gruber suggests,
because it's off by default and in fact when I try to enable Latitude (on road
trips, so family can track progress) I typically have a hard time finding it.
While neither option 1 nor option 2 is ideal for Apple, both were plausible,
reasonable solutions until their in-house maps solution was ready. This,
again, should be obvious.

It is immensely irresponsible to rip out something as critical and relied
upon, not just for convenience but for safety, as Maps and replace it with a
half-baked, disastrously incomplete lookalike. I totally sympathize with Apple
wanting out of Google's grip, but we need to be serious here. They released
far, far too early, and their draconian and self-serving policies for App
Store inclusion have left customers (in some cases literally) stranded.

Apple did a bad thing with this maps release. I would call Google right up and
strike a deal to push an OTA update that put the old maps back right away if I
were them.

~~~
rimantas

      > Please, this guy.
    

Yes this guy. One of the best writers about things related to Apple.

    
    
      > He defends Apple as if it were a deity.
    

No, he does not.

    
    
      > I don't think I've ever seen a truly substantial
      > criticism of Apple come out of him.
    

My guess the reason for that is that you just dismiss Gruber as "this guy" and
don't read what he writes.

Do we really believe that Apple is infallible?

No.

~~~
cookiecaper
>> He defends Apple as if it were a deity.

>No, he does not.

He sure seems like he's doing it to me. This whole post is about how Apple
Maps aren't really what they seem, and it's OK that Apple did this because
what else was Apple supposed to do? Just let Google have something they want?
Make a compromise when ideal options aren't tenable? Ha! The Great and
Powerful Apple could never stoop to such levels, reserved for mere-mortal
companies. The Great and Powerful Apple operates on a different plane, above
reproach, incomprehensible to normal minds. While we may never fully
understand The Great and Powerful Apple until the next life, we must trust
that they have our best interest at heart, and always do the best thing, like
replace functional mapping software with a ridiculously under-prepared
conflagration that would have people drive off cliffs. This may seem foolish
to us, but the wisdom of The Great and Powerful Apple sometimes appears as
foolishness to men.

~~~
cefstat
Strange. The way I read his article was "Apple was between a rock and a hard
place. They chose the hard place because that made more sense for them". He
doesn't praise Maps. He describes why he thinks Apple chose to make a less
than perfect Maps app, i.e., "made a compromise when ideal options weren't
tenable".

