It was always a single search box. And it always centered around results. Removing the side panel makes it so I now can't use a browser text search to find the results I want faster.

So, I disagree, and I think the old way was both easier (because I knew it) AND simpler (less complex). What now?

And here is the difference between Google employees and their users. Google believes, and has told their employees, that when they change something, users will always hate it because it's different, and that there is a gestation period during which the majority will "get used to it."

That "gestation period" now seems infinite, and any change is allowed to remain because real user feedback is ignored.

I think we've seen lot of instances of major vendors changing something, and everyone complaining, and then the new design becomes the new normal. Practically every Facebook redesign got pissed on.

Apple famously got ripped for Final Cut Pro X, for many of the same reasons people are ripping the new Maps (bunch of power user features removed)

I personally prefer the map to show the results. They are spotlighted and easy to see. The result box on the side used to annoy me because I'd have to keep moving the mouse and/or eyes from the list to the map and back. The new Maps consistently pops up the Infobox in the same place too.

You can't please everyone, but on mobile and touch devices, having a multi-pane interaction model is lame anyway. So really, the desktop is simply converging with the tablet.

>>I think we've seen lot of instances of major vendors changing something, and everyone complaining, and then the new design becomes the new normal. Practically every Facebook redesign got pissed on.

You might be getting confused. There's a difference between the new design becoming the "new normal," and the new design being tolerated because there aren't any real alternatives to the product. After all, the only reason Facebook users stopped complaining about each redesign is because they realized Facebook doesn't care what users think. (But I bet when major advertisers complain behind closed doors, they listen.)

Google Maps is not like Facebook. While it is currently the dominant maps service, it is not the only one. Not only that, but it also cannot rely on a strong network effect to protect it like Facebook can; if all your friends are on Facebook, then being on MySpace is kind of dumb. Can you say the same about Google Maps?

Here's the idea: you can afford to make sweeping, disruptive design changes if and only if you have a virtually unbreakable monopoly in your market. This is why Microsoft could risk changing the MS Office interface back in 2007. Even if they had screwed up, what would people switch to? There wasn't a good enough alternative. Again though, can you say the same about Google Maps?

No, obviously the stickiness is less based on network effects and more on brand perception. But a brand can also die from staleness.

A new generation of users are coming online whose experience is predominately a mobile one, and on touch, sparse, touchable, explorable interfaces are the norm. If Google simply kept maps the way it has been for a decade, sooner or later, they'd find themselves criticized because it doesn't work like "Apple Maps".

In fact, people seem more willing to adopt radical new user paradigms if the form factor changes. If I change your desktop email, you'll get annoyed, but if I create a radically new out of the box mobile email experience, you'll be more amenable to learn it.

>A new generation of users are coming online whose experience is predominately a mobile one, and on touch, sparse, touchable, explorable interfaces are the norm. If Google simply kept maps the way it has been for a decade, sooner or later, they'd find themselves criticized because it doesn't work like "Apple Maps".

Or, you know, they could have changed them into something better, either incrementally or in one step, instead of the new broken design.

Note that Apple, after the user rebellion from Final Cut Pro X, made the previous version available again, and is re-introducing many of the features removed into the new version in a manner consistent with the new (substantially improved) user interface.

>I think we've seen lot of instances of major vendors changing something, and everyone complaining, and then the new design becomes the new normal.

Sure, because what else are the users supposed to do? Return to MapQuest?

Meanwhile their hatred increases...

My particular issue with the new maps is when I search for a new unknown city and zoom out to see bigger area - pointer is gone! Try searching for city Kazan in Russia and try to quickly get an idea where the city is. Pointer or any mark of fhe city is gone when you zoom out enough!

There's still some important stuff missing in the redesign though, like My Places. You can reach it through the settings menu in the top-right corner, but it just redirects to the old layout. I seriously hope they're not considering removing this feature...

Another issue: there doesn't seem to be a way to go to your current location, which is especially annoying because Google Maps decides to show me the US at the beginning (I'm not in the US).

Interesting idea. However, my two year old machine that was top of the line in 2011 couldn't run the new maps.

This is not uncommon from what I've read.

Performance issues are valid, the Map obviously taxes machines more because it is using GPU rendering, but I would expect them to optimize it as time goes by.

But why release a version that has performance issues even on two year old hardware without optimizing it first. The new google maps is slow to the point of unusability on my two year old hardware. I can live with the rest of the UX changes, but not with the magnitude of the slowdown.

I hate that I can't simply place a pointer on the map and ask the GPS coordinates at that point. It's as if it is a walled product. On my Android - the same. Can't simply save a pointer on the map as GPS coordinates to a contact.