
Cartography Comparison: Google Maps and Apple Maps - manuelmagic
https://www.justinobeirne.com/cartography-comparison
======
vkb
I am disappointed at the type of criticism of this post on Hacker News. This
write-up is the kind of high-quality, original, analytical writing we so
desperately need these days, in an online world that is completely saturated
with clickbait that adds nothing to our understanding of the world.

Is the piece lacking in some semantics? Perhaps. But I was struck by the
comments about market share and Android strategy, rather than directly
discussing the article and the points it makes about the two maps at hand.

~~~
Fnoord
It is a rather long read about a specific topic. One could see it as a sign of
respect of authority when the topic itself isn't discussed. At the very least
the article isn't controversial.

I'll admit I haven't read the full article. I quit during P2. It is TMI,
extremely well detailed. I'd like to address the following two quotes from P1:

> But today, with multiple zoom-levels, there’s plenty of room to show
> everything. Small businesses, apartment buildings, and even homes — no place
> is too small or too unimportant to be shown on today’s maps.

 _Less is more._ You don't want to show as much information as you can. The
user does not want as much information as you can provide. This leads to
information overflow. A user wants _relevant_ information. It is up the
developers of the app to decide for the user what information they want. A way
to do this, is to change it based on zoom. However, beyond that, the
information could be drawn from a variety of factors, likely aided my ML/AI.
For example, take method of transportation. _Is the user in a car (as
passenger, or driver), or is the user cycling, or is the user using the metro,
or bus?_ Another variable could be _is the user new to this environment?_ or
yet another: who is the user? _ASL? Student? Income? Coffee drinker?
Interested in a coffee right now based on previous habits? Etc_ Google knows
those details much more accurate. They're after all an advertising company
specialised in data gathering company. They also may know what the user is
_not_ interested in based on profiling and behaviour. This gives Google a
clear edge in this field. (But I believe Apple will follow Google's footsteps
in becoming more oriented in user data -perhaps, even do a better job, too;
we'll see-)

> The “POI” is dead — because today, every place is of interest.

For the developer perhaps, but certainly untrue for the user. If you take
Google Maps, it appears to prioritise transit information. Apple Maps doesn't.
That makes Google Maps a better use case if you're interested in public
transport. Google Maps very recently (14 jan update) pushed a new version of
Google Maps with native Uber support which gives them yet another use case
functionality.

~~~
xander23
> Less is more. You don't want to show as much information as you can...

100% agree, but I don't think it's saying _more is better_.

Rather that because maps now have dozens of zoom-levels (as opposed to just 1
with paper maps), they can show all sorts of things that wouldn't have been
included before. Things like houses, small businesses, etc. Things that
would've never been on a paper map.

This makes the POI dead because now _anything_ can be included, anything can
be on the map (regardless of its importance).

(Example from my own experience: Google maps has an outline of my house on it
and even my backyard tool shed. But I've never seen a paper map that also had
this.)

Also 100% agree with you that personalization is awesome, but it seems like
the whole point was specifically to examine the defaults. To see what
decisions were made for the defaults and how it made the two different.

~~~
Fnoord
> Rather that because maps now have dozens of zoom-levels (as opposed to just
> 1 with paper maps), they can show all sorts of things that wouldn't have
> been included before. Things like houses, small businesses, etc. Things that
> would've never been on a paper map.

Yes, I got that point, but I think my counterpoint was stronger.

Perhaps I'm odd, but a POI which doesn't have my interest _is not a POI_. If
I'm in Paris, and I have no interest in seeing the Eiffel Tower, then the
Eiffel Tower is not a POI for me. It may very well be one for other people,
and I respect that, but I've seen the damn thing on multiple pictures already
(I've seen it IRL as well).

So from a technical PoV the POI is dead because everything _can_ be a POI?
This suggests the developer believes more is better. Whereas when I looked at
Google Maps reducing the amount of information I get the impression they
realise _less is more_.

The default should not matter. Do the default search results on Google Search
matter? Given the rise of the bubble, less and less. I hope the same can be
true for Google Maps and Apple Maps. At the same time, we must be careful to
regularly think outside of our bubbles, or look into the bubbles of others
(e.g. your wife's, son's, aunt's, etc).

~~~
xander23
> I think my counterpoint was stronger.

No, what I was saying was that your counterpoint isn't a counterpoint. A
counterpoint would be: Google _shouldn 't_ show new kinds of things on the map
(such as houses, small businesses, etc.).

The OP is talking about _new kinds of things_ , while you're talking about the
_density of things_. And the OP actually makes the same argument you're making
a few paragraphs later:

> we’re also seeing the argument for map personalization: Not everyone uses
> transit, so there might be places—such as landmarks—that are more important
> to some people. And when it’s life-and-death, hospitals are the most
> important places in the world. But how often does the average person visit a
> hospital? Personalized maps are better at surfacing the most appropriate
> places for each person; but for the default map, something still has to be
> chosen… and that’s what we saw above.

Personalization is great, but something still has to be chosen for the
default. That's why the default matters.

------
dzdt
It seems that google has a more coherent theory of how users use maps at
different zoom levels.

At the outermost zoom, physical geography is emphasized : terrain shows
prominently, and political boundaries at the national level with hints of
state boundaries.

Zoom in farther, and political bondaries are more emphasized and physical
features less. States are named and some cities.

Zoom in farther and you start to reach the domain of navigation. Large roads
are prominent and labelled, as are some cities.

Zoom in farther and more roads are labelled, as well as rail/metro stops and
some landmark destinations.

At the highest levels of zoom, finally it transitions to destinations and
foot-navigation as the focus.

Apple has a similar progression, but with less coherence. It emphasizes
cities/neighborhoods more at the expense of road labels. And landmarks and
destinations appear at lower zoom levels, also at the expense of road labels.
Rail/metro stations are much less prominent.

------
pella
Alternative: OpenStreetMap !

"The following companies offer consulting, tile-hosting or other services for
sites wishing to switch to OpenStreetMap."

[https://switch2osm.org/providers/](https://switch2osm.org/providers/)

~~~
pella
* [http://www.weeklyosm.eu/](http://www.weeklyosm.eu/)

* [http://www.openstreetmap.org/help](http://www.openstreetmap.org/help)

* Tips for new (Pokemon Go) mappers: [https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2016/12/30/tips-pokemon-go/](https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2016/12/30/tips-pokemon-go/)

------
Bedon292
From a cartographic perspective I would love to see this expanded to include
Mapbox, and Bing. As well as Yandex, and any other foreign players whose names
I cannot remember right now. I would probably be more interested in seeing how
they compare, instead of just US based ones.

~~~
kuschku
Here WeGo (formerly Nokia, originally NavteQ, now I think owned by BMW?) would
also be interesting.

EDIT: Turns out it’s VAG, BMW, Daimler, Intel and some more.

~~~
maxerickson
Here is owned by a consortium of automakers and recently, Intel and a couple
others.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_(company)#Acquisition_by_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_\(company\)#Acquisition_by_car_companies)

------
Oletros
> And both are in a race to become the world’s first Universal Map — that is,
> the first map used by a majority of the global population

This is a very US centric view.

The comparison is done in the city where the two companies are nearly located,
the other city is the most important in US and the other is the most important
of the English speaking cities in the world outside USA.

If you want to talk about global mapping, use global comparisons.

And not talking about the fact that Apple Maps are supported in just one
platform and the market share in USA is very different than globally.

~~~
Theodores
It is not a race to become the universal map. When Steve Jobs was breathing,
there were a few fierce words about 'Android'. Having Google Maps or a Google
browser on the phone was to be avoided at all costs so Apple shopped for maps
and put something together so they would not be at the mercy of Google
deciding to discontinue their maps app on iOS/Safari. So the Apple maps were
never born out of vision, just spiteful thinking and a perceived need to have
indigenous maps that were not supplied by the old sparring partner (Microsoft)
or the evil Google.

I think that the Apple map product was designed in that era of skuomorphic
thinking that went on until recently in iOS. So the maps are designed to be a
familiar map, much like the atlas you had as a kid when it comes to
typography.

The Google Maps evolved from looking like paper maps a long time ago and are
about showing you the information you want, not everything that can be crammed
on screen. This challenges us to think about how we see the world, for a long
time 'A-Z' maps were the thing and you had page numbers and 'square' numbers,
e.g. B7, page 126 instead of 'hyperlinks'. Apple maps are more in line with
that 'old persons' way of dealing with cartography issues, the Google maps are
pioneering a better UX for visualising the world.

~~~
eridius
It wasn't spite. Google introduced a large new feature as Android-only (turn-
by-turn directions) and refused to put it on iOS. So this wasn't just a fear
that Google would use its position to screw over Apple, Google was actually
actively doing that.

~~~
Oletros
No, they didn't refused, Apple and Google didn't agree in the terms to put the
feature in iOs.

The maps apps was developed by Apple

~~~
eridius
Where are you getting your information? Because that's wrong. Google
introduced turn-by-turn on Android and deliberately kept it out of iOS because
they were trying to make Android more attractive. Google and Apple had an
existing contract at that time, there were no terms to negotiate. And so when
the contract did expire, Apple dropped Google Maps and introduced their own
Apple Maps because Google had already demonstrated their willingness to screw
over Apple.

~~~
Oletros
The app was done by Apple, not by Google. Apple used the Google Maps API and
that API doesn't allow turn by turn.

So no, Google did not screwed Apple, both companies didn't agree to for the
terms to use the turn by turn.

That's all, none of them were guilty of anything.

~~~
eridius
The app's code was written by Apple, yes, but it was done so in close
collaboration with Google. It's not like Apple was just another API consumer.
And if Google hadn't had their heads up their asses, they would have given
turn-by-turn to Apple and perhaps enjoyed still being the default mapping app
on iOS.

Also FWIW it wasn't just turn-by-turn, it was also the fact that Google wanted
Apple to give them more user data, which Apple didn't want to do. So even with
turn-by-turn it's possible Apple may have chosen to do their own maps anyway,
but turn-by-turn was definitely a major reason why Apple dropped Google and
built their own service.

~~~
Oletros
My God, I have said that both didn't agree in the terms, Apple wanted turn by
turn and Google wanted more user data for giving it.

But yes. Evil Google sdcreweed Poor Little Apple.

They had to give ALL the features without receiving anything, who they tought
they were?

~~~
eridius
You are aware that Google makes a large portion of its mobile profits from
iOS, right? Even though Google wasn't getting as much user data as they wanted
from Apple, being the default mapping app on iOS was still a big benefit for
them. It's not like Google was being generous by providing maps for iOS. So
Google just screwed themselves. Google thought they could force Apple to do
what Google wanted, because they thought Apple didn't have a reasonable
alternative. But it turns out that Apple did, which was to build their own
independent mapping service.

~~~
Oletros
> You are aware that Google makes a large portion of its mobile profits from
> iOS

And you can provide a source for that claim, isn't?

But yes, we are aware that you're convinced that Google were just a evil and
stupid company that screwed themselves.

In what world two companies can disagree, Apple was totally right demanding
everything without giving more.

Problem is that reality is what it is, both of them are powerful companies,
both of them have their interests and they didn't aligned. Nothin less,
nothing more. Not he fracking black and whit world you paint

~~~
eridius
I really don't know what kind of argument you think you're having, but each
new comment is making less and less sense. I also don't appreciate how you
keep trying to put words in my mouth.

The whole point of my original comment was to just dispute the claim that
Apple developed their own Maps out of spite. I don't know why you're trying so
hard to pretend that the removal of Google Maps was entirely Apple's fault,
and why you keep repeating the same claims that I've already debunked (e.g.
"Apple was totally right demanding everything without giving more").

------
gcr
I strongly prefer apple maps.

Why?

Because I have low vision and only Apple Maps respects the system font size. I
can actually read the map labels. Google maps renders the print too small.

If I can't read the map labels, I can't use the map. Everything else is gravy.

------
Cenk
I wish there were more settings and personalisations available in both Maps
apps. I’d like to activate an option that always shows me all public transport
stations, regardless of zoom level.

~~~
vetinari
There's a reason why it is not being done - you wouldn't be satisfied with the
speed. Try some old-fashioned GIS application, that queries and displays
exactly what you have selected and compare that with Google Maps.

These map apps with cached tiles (whether raster or vector, doesn't matter)
gain speed precisely because they limit what the user can choose and then
cache that. The normal GIS apps cannot do that, but conversely, their users
are complaining that Google Maps is much faster...

~~~
maxerickson
I would think that vector tiles + display filtering would be roughly just as
fast as vector tiles without any filtering.

At least assuming a halfway decent implementation (it shouldn't take real long
to process the few hundred items that would be present in the viewport).

~~~
Bedon292
You certainly could filter what you receive in the vector tile. However that
vector tile is already a cached / filtered piece of the data. It limits what
you would be able to do.

~~~
maxerickson
Sure, the client can only filter the data it receives. But the tiling approach
and client side filtering can clearly be applied to POIs, and while I haven't
actually experimented with such a thing, I would expect the performance to be
quite good even if the user had lots of filters set.

------
blauditore
The article reads like there are no noteworthy alternatives to those two. But
in my experience, at least HERE Maps and Bing Maps are quite up to par.
Especially HERE is quite strong when it comes to navigation.

~~~
prplhaz4
They lead with this, which is probably why others aren't considered...

>> both are in a race to become the world’s first Universal Map — that is, the
first map used by a majority of the global population

~~~
dpark
Is Apple actually trying to have a universal map? Can you even use Apple maps
if you're not on an Apple device?

~~~
konschubert
Exactly. There are a number of maps racing for world domination, Apple isn't
one of them.

------
ChuckMcM
Ok, a very interesting way to analyze maps. Like a lot of engineers I enjoy
different maps. It wasn't until we replaced our wall sized US Map this year
(we got a large format US Map, World Map, and Globe when homeschooling our
kids) that I realized how different maps could be (both good and bad).

In my fantasy science fiction imagination I've got a map on an large format
HiDPI screen that I can drop a Surface Dial on to and turn it to pick out the
features I want from Pilot to Topographic to Road Atlas to Political
Districts. We have the bandwidth and storage to do that now, just need a
designer and business case.

------
maxerickson
Small discussion from when the article was newer:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11836584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11836584)

------
jonathankoren
While specifically cartography, the recent trend to 3D render satellite views
by both Google and Apple is pretty bad, and a step backwards. Both companies
try to project the 2D photograph onto a 3D mesh, which fails to work in many
cases due to alignment and measurement errors. Instead of getting nicely
wrapped polygons, you get weird crumpled shapes with distorted pixels
projected on them. While annoying, this wouldn't be a show a stopper because
you can always click "2D" to see the undistorted 2D photograph right?

WRONG! 2D simply rotates the 3D model so that the z-axis is perpendicular to
your screen. All the distortions and artifacts remain in place! This is
broken.

------
roesel
This is so awesome. High quality, in-depth, and very on-point. I love whoever
went to all the trouble to make this. Awesome content!

------
wodenokoto
All of the example images are too low resolution to actually make up your mind
about what the author is talking about when referring to them.

~~~
4ght
The images enlarge when tapped upon

~~~
wodenokoto
Not by any meaningful size on my machine.

------
orik
The image loading on this site was pretty unbearable; the images loaded from
the bottom up lazily and were pretty low resolution.

I ended up loading all the chapters before I read the 2nd page, so the rest of
the pages would be ready for me. I don't know if the image loading was a
design choice or just because of the HN traffic.

Very fascinating topic.

~~~
anonymousmaps
All of the images enlarge when you click on them. (It's mentioned in the
Intro.)

------
gefh
[May 2016]

------
Odenwaelder
Thanks O'Beirne! That was really interesting.

------
graaben
Off topic but I found this interesting:

Out of the top 10 mobile apps in the US 5 are owned by Google, 3 by Facebook,
and 2 by Apple.

------
konschubert
> And both are in a race to become the world’s first Universal Map — that is,
> the first map used by a majority of the global population. In many ways,
> this makes Google Maps and Apple Maps two of the most important maps ever
> made.

> Who will get there first?

Isn't it pretty clear that Android is well ahead in global market share? I
mean, Apple isn't even trying to become the market leader, they are solely
focused on the premium segment.

~~~
bostand
I stopped reading right there.

If you live in a bubble that small I am probably not going to learn anything
from reading your article...

------
spot
i am more interested in accuracy comparison than i am in design.

~~~
bla2
That's in there, see part 2.

------
guard-of-terra
> And both are in a race to become the world’s first Universal Map — that is,
> the first map used by a majority of the global population

Actually, lol, no. OpenStreetMap is. Google Maps will be a contender for some
time, but eventually it'll settle.

~~~
tornadoboy55
Then why does nearly every business use Google Maps and it's API for map
features? You have to pay for maps access on a commercial basis, so they'd be
stupid to ignore a free (and according to you superior) solution.

My guess is you're a FOSS zealot who can't admit that a commercial rendition
of a particular idea is superior, because it would crush your ideologies and
beliefs.. (and I say that as someone who has no problem with using _good_ FOSS
like VLC or Transmission)

~~~
vetinari
Many businesses use Mapbox (which is based on OSM, but is not free) and many
consider that superior choice to GMaps. Others use Bing maps (Facebook, for
example). Then there are Here maps, Yandex maps, etc.

GMaps are a quick and comfortable choice, but if your business really depends
on communicating with maps, or you want to do something more than display pins
or overlay kmls, it is not a best choice.

