I think that explains a lot of their behaviour and why they're even shutting down seemingly successful (from a user's view) services - because they don't earn enough money.
Another big point is that to be successful at Google, you have to create new projects. Nobody gets promoted by maintaining existing projects. Also, it seems as if there's no communication between groups. So if a group gets reassigned or key people leave, their project (e.g. the umpteenth messenger app) gets sunset, too.
I don't think this is all political, but rather they're aimlessly throwing projects at the wall to see which stick.
Other than advertising, which scales like crazy and has negligible unit costs, there isn't much that would meaningfully move the needle at Google scale. Cloud computing would work there, but it's definitely a lower margin business than selling ads online, since there are actual costs for hardware and ongoing software maintenance.
> I don't think this is all political, but rather they're aimlessly throwing projects at the wall to see which stick.
Which is kind of funny, because a decade or so ago, Larry Page said that they'd put "more wood behind fewer arrows." [0] That article even mentions Google+:
> Can Google still push the creative envelope without a testing facility? That’s yet to be proven. Although last month’s successful launch of Google+ could be taken as an early indication that Google’s knack for inventiveness will live on outside of the lab.
In retrospect, that didn't age too well.
[0] https://news.yahoo.com/more-wood-behind-fewer-arrows-google-...
I find it shocking how bad Hangouts is.
It's so convenient. Chat, built right into Gmail. It works. But. BUT.
- It does not support video. Drop in a video, and you get a bizarre error message telling you to try "JPG, PNG, GIF, BMP, TIFF, and HEIFimage files" (sic) instead. https://twitter.com/dcposch/status/1303193761313206272
- Tiny little chat windows. No replies, no reactions. Basic UX that feels like abandonware from 2010.
- If you have Google Fi, you can take phone calls thru Hangouts, but you cannot send or receive text messages (??)
I just feel bad for whatever rump team of a few engineers has to maintain that product. They are plainly caught on the wrong end of some strange and gross internal politics.
Google has a self-defeating practice of emphasizing "new products shipped" in their promotion packets. That probably explains why their army of PMs has, instead of improving Hangouts for a billion Gmail users, chosen to create the following instead: Google Meet, Duo, "Google Chat", and an endless parade of now-cancelled apps like Allo.
That's every VC's dream isn't it?
I have no interest in seeing where the nearest McDonalds is, unless I search for it. POI markers for places I need to go (via bookings/appointments) are good, but POIs for places I have never been are bad.
For whatever reason I can never see the street name I want to see anymore. Between the excessive labelling, there is simply no space, and Maps decides to prioritise other labels instead of the STREET NAME.
When I am navigating, I really _really_ need to know the street name.
It's been this way for years, and it's my #1 gripe with Maps. It's particularly bad in a dense grid like NYC, where some streets only appear for a block or two. If Maps doesn't decide to print the name on that block...I guess I'm not allowed to know what street that is?
I vaguely recall reading about this on HN when it happened, and the consensus was that the logic for determining whether to print the street label had been changed for aesthetic reasons.
Peak form over function.
Anecdotally, I don't see any rhyme nor reason for whether it decides to show the street name or not. Oftentimes, it will value a side-street over the main street, and in _some_ cases this makes sense (e.g. you are on the larger street, and want to see intersecting streets), but Maps doesn't seem to read contextual clues... if I am not navigating, or zooming in from further away, showing larger streets first would be better.
I’ve worked on similar problems and it’s not the easiest to solve. And I’ve never solved it because it was never that important of problem to solve and we just moved on to the next issue.
Apple Maps UI: A big map, with a search bar at the bottom. Simple and nothing but the essentials.
Google Maps UI: A page full of ads, a map full of ads and ads masquerading as recommendations. Plus five tab bar buttons at the bottom to not accomplish very much.
I've switched to Apple Maps simply because of its better UX and how much easier the app is to use. As far as I can tell, their mapping and navigational data in Canada is every bit as good as Google's. The only thing keeping Google Maps on my phone is their superior reviews. Once Apple replaces Yelp reviews, I'll jettison the Google Maps app into the sun.
I was sent off 1.5 miles away on the same road, to a wallgreens, when my destination was a restaurant with friends. I came late. It was humiliating.
I live outside of the USA, and Apple maps consistently screwed up to the point that I've deleted it.
So, one anecdote for, one against, it evens out for now.
Eh, I cross reference Google Maps with Waze all the time back when I used it, but I wouldn't dare call Google Maps unreliable. It costs nothing to do, so why wouldn't it?
Unless "back when I used it" refers to pre-2013, I'm not sure I'd describe that as cross-referencing.
Disclaimer: I'm from New Zealand. Map data is constantly out of date here, no matter which vendor you deal with. Google, Apple, Bing, OSM, whatever. For me, double checking is no problem.
An example: I recently searched for "photography repair" in my area and Apple gave me film developing places and local event photographers, Google gave me (I kid you not, first result) McDonalds and Best Buy. The latter I can understand, they sell photography equipment and they do repair things (I don't think photo gear?..) but McD? McD pin is also always visible in Google Maps for me now.
Neither result set was helpful, though I guess that's because what I was looking for probably doesn't even exist in the area. Apples results were more useful, I could at least call those places and ask for advice and they're local businesses. Google on the other hand was just irrelevant paid advertising basically. They are regressing.
I should say too I've been trying to main Apple Maps for 5 years and it has gotten a lot better as a mapping/navigation tool, it has been my main navigator for 3 years but I still bounce to Google for search variety.
I suspect they are prioritizing the other gas station brands because they paid for preference, and selected "Maverik" as one of their keywords, but the impact to me is that the exact thing I searched for doesn't come up even though I know it's there because I've stopped there before.
If somebody gives me a simple maps product algorithm that just shows me what I'm asking for without preferencing paid people using key words and I'll likely switch. I've loved Google for many years but they are getting much worse.
The second level is that customers know that this will happen, and don't bother looking into the more expensive options. Why bother paying a premium when you get the same poor experience out of it?
The third level happens when market research shows that people are not willing to pay for a premium product. This gets erroneously attributed to people preferring cheap ad-ridden junk, rather than being a response to markets producing expensive ad-ridden junk. (Side note, I despise the concept of "revealed preferences" for this reason.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your results might have been more satisfying if you had searched using the term “camera repair”.
Actually I probably was searching "photography" at some point because "camera" was bringing up general retail more and I was hoping an actual repair business would hav photography as a keyword more than a retail business would. Just further illustrates how frustrating this is.
It’s only available in certain media city locations. If you stray out of those areas you’re out of luck.
Basically Apple seem more interested in rolling this out as a tick box item for journalists than helping me get to work.
This tells me that Apple is not serious about its Maps app.
Waiting to support part of the world until they can support all of the targeted regions would deprive users of data they have for, I guess, years.
So, it should be a gradual rollout. Where should they start? I would think it’s easiest in richer countries, where it’s easier to obtain reliable data, and updates thereof.
Also, denser population areas likely give them most bang for the buck (getting many happy users as fast as possible seems necessary to me when discussing the success of the Maps app with senior management)
Because of those arguments, I don’t see whether that would look much different from what’s happening now.
So, I don’t see how one can conclude they aren’t serious about the Maps app or cycle paths.
Of course, things would be different if we had data telling us they don’t plan to get large coverage, slowed down or even stopped data gathering. I am not aware of either, though. It would be nice to have a history of the info on https://www.apple.com/ios/feature-availability, to see what, if any, progress they make.
Maybe routing is too hard on such a dense network, or it’s just that they’re an American company.
As it is it’s more like the 3D Tour feature of Maps. A great novelty but not useful outside of a very narrow usecase. That’s been around for a few years now but is still only available in a handful of locations.
seems like a fairly long list though I havent monitored how often they add locations so maybe it launched with 100+ international locations.
https://www.apple.com/ios/feature-availability/#maps-flyover
Often though this “curation” is never rolled out to a wider audience.
Take for example on site servicing. Apple have never offered that and instead you’re encouraged to visit your local Apple Store.
Except that Apple Stores are still not present out side of certain blessed locations.
If you don’t live somewhere Apple thinks is trendy enough for an Apple Store you’re out of luck.
I’m not expecting a wider roll out of routing for cyclists anytime soon.
Apple has offered on-site servicing as standard under AppleCare for many many years.
Excellent, I’m sure that wasn’t the case here last time I checked and gives me hope. Thanks for pointing that out.
I love it.
If google could deploy that tech demo that calls a business on public holidays to check if they are open, that would be amazing.
Apple Maps has had Tokyo transit data since 2016.
Tokyo got transit data years before many other cities.
They actually removed it entirely? You couldn't install google maps in any way?
Timeline:
Sep 19, 2012 - iOS 6
Dec 13, 2012 - Google Maps launched on App Store
This leaves me with one question — why does Apple reinvent it anyway? Why can't they just use ridiculously detailed OpenStreetMap data (with appropriate attribution) and call it a day?
Because Apple learnt a long time ago that something essential needs to be in their hands; third parties let Apple down.
Google let Apple down by refusing to allow Apple to craft vector-based maps, only allowing Apple to download bitmaps. Thus Apple Maps.
Intel let Apple down by failing to predict where the market was moving since about 2012 or so, with the Core processors not gaining much in terms of performance and somehow managing to guzzle more energy. Thus Apple Silicon.
Plenty of other examples where Apple realised they can't offer the whole package until they own all the components. The formula is "<Company> didn't do <Thing> and it impacted Apple's offerings. Thus <Apple Thing>".
That doesn't stop Apple needing control, or at least feeling that way.
> Apple could as well contribute whatever improvements it deems necessary to benefit themselves and everyone else
They do. Apple uses OSM data and contributes to OSM indirectly (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Apple).
> It would've been a much better starting point, too
Who's to say? As stated, Apple does use OSM data. They use data from multiple different sources. (http://gspa21.ls.apple.com/html/attribution.html)
> than whatever proprietary data they licensed to get started
I detect a bit of a fallacy in what you're saying, that Apple wanting to have control over their own geographical data must mean that they aren't using or contributing to OSM. It isn't a zero-sum situation.
I, too, noticed the new branding which must be for-pay. Looking for something unrelated to food or auto over a dozen city blocks showed me where the McDonalds and the Firestone were, with logos.
I use maps for more than just directions: I use it as a defacto search engine for finding local businesses, phone numbers and websites. It is a GUI for geo-search. I wish another search engine could recreate it effectively.
I have to use Google Maps "Go" (the light-weight version) on my phone because of all the clutter in their mobile version. Granted I have an older phone - Galaxy S7 - but for something that worked just fine on even older devices, I don't think that's a valid excuse for it being nearly unusable on an S7 now. Thankfully Maps Go is pretty quick, but the biggest feature I miss out on with the Go version is offline maps.
The ad-free 'Premium Search' is where they'll really make their fortune.
I can understand people vouching for using youtube premium or nebula instead, but not this.
You have found a way not to pay for something, good for you, but brandishing it as some kind of "perfectly fine solution" is just laughable.
Anyway, many, if not most, youtubers have pateron now in case you want to contribute to their incomes without feeding surveillance capitalism.
If paying for Google's services acted as an opt-out from their surveillance then I might consider it; but they'd never give users the opportunity to not have Google looking over their shoulder.
- Their data isn't as good. Easily half the businesses are missing, and most businesses don't have details like hours. Even the road type and quality is unreliable in some areas, leading the routing to prefer bad roads that are technically shorter in length but worse in time in reality.
- No reviews, although it's coming in the future it seems.
- Speed limits aren't indicated.
- Speed traps aren't indicated.
- No cycling directions even in major cities, although it's coming slowly.
- It doesn't display areas of interest, like Google Maps does in yellow. That is essential in a city you're not familiar with, to know where to go to find active streets.
- No street view in most places, although it's also coming slowly. I find it very useful quite often, like finding a street with free parking before navigating there.
- Transit directions use theoretical schedules, not real-time. Google Maps doesn't either, but Citymapper/Transit does.
- It doesn't have data on "busy times".
I wish there was a way to contribute more efficiently to the map. That app is improving slowly but it could be much faster with trusted local mappers (or local employed mappers).
In my opinion Apple Maps could "easily" get a significant lead on Google Maps if they added toll prices, especially if it optimized your route for time vs price. It's a major feature missing from every service now.
The AR button however is incredibly annoying as I seem to activate it by mistake a little too often.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/apple-maps-new-ratings-...
If anything tells me Google is losing the ability to innovate it's the newly added pill buttons for pre-set searches and branded POIs on the map. I remember when this was added to MapQuest circa 2010, and was the transition from trying to have an excellent mapping experience to just adding revenue focused features.
Google is still operating from an extremely strong position, by nature of having nearly infinite budget and owning their mapping and search dataset. It's concerning that the iOS app seems to be suffering from the same issues that preceded the gradual downfall of MapQuest from a product perspective.