I saw someone tweet (and someone I follow retweet) this: "Nine years ago Safari was released: a fringe browser that didn't run sites for IE well. Today, its engine powers everything. Now think maps."
I laughed and then felt really, really bad for them.
It's unbelievable the way people react to criticism. (in any cases, not just Apple/iPhone)
Trojankitten is extraordinarily astute and her opinion is not to be dismissed as partisanship. She is correct in that Maps are a fundamental and incredibly important platform service that will only become moreso over time.
If it doesn't change how much they suck today, then why do people keep bringing it up in response to complaints about how much they suck today? I can understand speculating that the new maps will get better, but I don't understand why that's being used as a response to people talking about how terrible they are now.
I have no idea who this person is other than guessing she is a female from her profile picture. It's also not the first tweet I've found to be completely off-base and ironically, the second today. The tweet about intro/extrovertedness is just flatly wrong.
I have no reason to take her tweet as anything but what it is. In context with her other tweets, I feel pretty damn safe in calling it at least a bit partisan. A quick scan of the first above-the fold tweets shows another conversation that is blatantly intentionally down-playing the badness of the iOS6 maps.
edit: I mean, I haven no stake in this, as I've said I have no idea who this person is, but you can't read through that feed and tell me with an honest tone that it's not biased. It's blatantly pro-Apple tweet, anti-Google tweet, ambiguous tweet about Microsoft competing with Google. Repeat.
edit2: I've devolved into an off-topic rant about some random Twitter account. I apologize. I'll merely conclude that likening iOS6 Maps to Safari (and really WebKit) as a response to how bad Maps is... is pretty desperate in my opinion.
Yes it's biased, she's deeply opinionated, yes she's an opinioneer, etc... But she's still got a piece of the truth in hand: Maps are important, they're only becoming moreso, and Apple is extremely unlikely to sit on their ass now that they've launched their own stack. (especially once their customer satisfaction numbers start plopping, which they will)
Now that is a much more palatable and understandable angle. I completely agree that it makes sense for Apple to take it in house. I completely sympathize that is a monumental (literally, World-sized) problem to tackle and that for a first-release, this is probably admirable of Apple.
I guess I still don't buy that Apple Maps are going to become the ubiquitous success that WebKit is.
There's one of two implications at hand:
1. It will be the best thing ever because Apple made it (which makes me immensely sad and is why I groaned at this tweet).
2. It will become a staple used by everyone like WebKit.
I don't see any chance of #2 happening as that would require Apple to license that data, or make it a service, or a reusable component for others to use. I can't think of anything that Apple does so with currently, nor any movement from them to make that seem like a logical choice.
Thus, again, I'm left wondering where on Earth someone comes up with correlating iOS6 Maps and WebKit.
I'm thinking it goes something like this: Let's assume Apple's map quality is more or less resolved within the near future and put it aside. What can they do with total control over a POI+venue database?
-- They can generate statistics on who's searching for what, when, and where from and sell that off or give it away free to venue operators.
-- They can link custom Apps and content to a venue. (Welcome to the Museum! Tap here to download a free tour guide.") They can link .passbook offers directly on-map. ("Tap here for a discount on entry, today only!")
-- They can sell off preferential search results, preferential ratings, or retargeted advertising like Google and Yelp do.
-- They can do the opposite of that and proclaim that their maps and venue listings are of unimpeachable quality without gamed results
-- They can create a meta-venue datatype through Apple Connect that allows authorized entities to quickly whip up appealing micro-sites for their venues "Drop your menu .PDF here"
-- They can do anything they want with in-venue navigation, which is going to be massive now that the interior mapping tools are coming onto the market
With all this done:
-- They can API-ize this and create mini-sites or mini-apps wrapped in Yelp-y context that replace the entire idea of how you interact with a venue. For instance: "Thai Bistro" is now an App that tells you exactly what's going on with your favorite joint without consulting twitter, facebook, a webpage, and a mapping service.
In short, with this map platform they can now own the total experience of -leaving the house-. Google is years ahead of them on this, and it's unlikely Google's willing to share their advances with their frenemy.
Maps are foundational to representing the state of the civilization around you. It's the Webkit for Real World Experiences.
I don't think her point is that it's going to get used in lots of other projects but that it will grow to be a big success, and one that people will look back on and say "Apple was right to set off on this weird-seeming path back then." We'll see, of course.
(I say this as somebody that was shocked that Apple didn't build Safari 1.0 on top of Mozilla/Gecko. KHTML?!)
I mean, in that regard I hope she's right. I hope that Apple brings Google Maps some serious competition and obviously, for my iOS breathren, I hope that their maps experience continues to be enhanced.
But we all know that, right? Maybe this was just a response to "iOS Maps sux. Apple sux." type comments? I'm not sure. It's hard for me to believe how polar peoples' opinions still are on iOS and Android to have to have these silly conversations.
Also, it seems very misguided to use "Safari was released. [Safari] became successful."...
to imply that "AnythingElse was released. AnythingElse will become successful."
Literally pick any product that has ever not become a rousing success and you have plenty of counter-examples as to why that logic is faulty at best.
I still also find it be evidence of pandering to go out of the way to say "Safari is a success" rather than "WebKit". The sentiment of the tweet isn't even remotely accurate for "Safari".
That one is not that bad, I just take it to mean a humble start can become a fantastic product.
Now this one on the other hand, I can't figure out the state of mind leading to writing it and releasing that to the world:
> What’s missing from this conversation is that map usage is critical. […] Google’s maps are going to start degrading. Apple’s will get better. They’ll meet in the middle within 18 months.
I've seen that response several times now, and it's incredibly bizarre. Why should a guess at the potential future impact evaluation of how the thing is right now?
Based on kbutler's response above, my other post detailing the two options I see and the fact that my "Uh, it's not open source?" comment is downvoted, I'm inclined to think that there are some here that believe "Apple release -> auto(eventual) success".
I mean, as you say, what other basis is there for even making such a strange comparison between two vastly different projects (an open source rendering engine and a proprietary data set gained through partnerships and manual data gathering?
Comments
I saw someone tweet (and someone I follow retweet) this: "Nine years ago Safari was released: a fringe browser that didn't run sites for IE well. Today, its engine powers everything. Now think maps."
I laughed and then felt really, really bad for them.
It's unbelievable the way people react to criticism. (in any cases, not just Apple/iPhone)
Trojankitten is extraordinarily astute and her opinion is not to be dismissed as partisanship. She is correct in that Maps are a fundamental and incredibly important platform service that will only become moreso over time.
Doesn't change how much they suck today, though.
If it doesn't change how much they suck today, then why do people keep bringing it up in response to complaints about how much they suck today? I can understand speculating that the new maps will get better, but I don't understand why that's being used as a response to people talking about how terrible they are now.
I have no idea who this person is other than guessing she is a female from her profile picture. It's also not the first tweet I've found to be completely off-base and ironically, the second today. The tweet about intro/extrovertedness is just flatly wrong.
I have no reason to take her tweet as anything but what it is. In context with her other tweets, I feel pretty damn safe in calling it at least a bit partisan. A quick scan of the first above-the fold tweets shows another conversation that is blatantly intentionally down-playing the badness of the iOS6 maps.
edit: I mean, I haven no stake in this, as I've said I have no idea who this person is, but you can't read through that feed and tell me with an honest tone that it's not biased. It's blatantly pro-Apple tweet, anti-Google tweet, ambiguous tweet about Microsoft competing with Google. Repeat.
edit2: I've devolved into an off-topic rant about some random Twitter account. I apologize. I'll merely conclude that likening iOS6 Maps to Safari (and really WebKit) as a response to how bad Maps is... is pretty desperate in my opinion.
Yes it's biased, she's deeply opinionated, yes she's an opinioneer, etc... But she's still got a piece of the truth in hand: Maps are important, they're only becoming moreso, and Apple is extremely unlikely to sit on their ass now that they've launched their own stack. (especially once their customer satisfaction numbers start plopping, which they will)
What in the world is an opinioneer?
A word I made up.
Now that is a much more palatable and understandable angle. I completely agree that it makes sense for Apple to take it in house. I completely sympathize that is a monumental (literally, World-sized) problem to tackle and that for a first-release, this is probably admirable of Apple.
I guess I still don't buy that Apple Maps are going to become the ubiquitous success that WebKit is.
There's one of two implications at hand:
1. It will be the best thing ever because Apple made it (which makes me immensely sad and is why I groaned at this tweet).
2. It will become a staple used by everyone like WebKit.
I don't see any chance of #2 happening as that would require Apple to license that data, or make it a service, or a reusable component for others to use. I can't think of anything that Apple does so with currently, nor any movement from them to make that seem like a logical choice.
Thus, again, I'm left wondering where on Earth someone comes up with correlating iOS6 Maps and WebKit.
I'm thinking it goes something like this: Let's assume Apple's map quality is more or less resolved within the near future and put it aside. What can they do with total control over a POI+venue database?
-- They can generate statistics on who's searching for what, when, and where from and sell that off or give it away free to venue operators.
-- They can link custom Apps and content to a venue. (Welcome to the Museum! Tap here to download a free tour guide.") They can link .passbook offers directly on-map. ("Tap here for a discount on entry, today only!")
-- They can sell off preferential search results, preferential ratings, or retargeted advertising like Google and Yelp do.
-- They can do the opposite of that and proclaim that their maps and venue listings are of unimpeachable quality without gamed results
-- They can create a meta-venue datatype through Apple Connect that allows authorized entities to quickly whip up appealing micro-sites for their venues "Drop your menu .PDF here"
-- They can do anything they want with in-venue navigation, which is going to be massive now that the interior mapping tools are coming onto the market
With all this done:
-- They can API-ize this and create mini-sites or mini-apps wrapped in Yelp-y context that replace the entire idea of how you interact with a venue. For instance: "Thai Bistro" is now an App that tells you exactly what's going on with your favorite joint without consulting twitter, facebook, a webpage, and a mapping service.
In short, with this map platform they can now own the total experience of -leaving the house-. Google is years ahead of them on this, and it's unlikely Google's willing to share their advances with their frenemy.
Maps are foundational to representing the state of the civilization around you. It's the Webkit for Real World Experiences.
I don't think her point is that it's going to get used in lots of other projects but that it will grow to be a big success, and one that people will look back on and say "Apple was right to set off on this weird-seeming path back then." We'll see, of course.
(I say this as somebody that was shocked that Apple didn't build Safari 1.0 on top of Mozilla/Gecko. KHTML?!)
I mean, in that regard I hope she's right. I hope that Apple brings Google Maps some serious competition and obviously, for my iOS breathren, I hope that their maps experience continues to be enhanced.
But we all know that, right? Maybe this was just a response to "iOS Maps sux. Apple sux." type comments? I'm not sure. It's hard for me to believe how polar peoples' opinions still are on iOS and Android to have to have these silly conversations.
I'd say the 2005 open source release of WebKit was a necessary precondition for "Today its engine powers everything."
Is there any reason to expect a similar direction for Apple with maps?
Webkit was just Apple's fork of KHTML.
The KDE Linux desktop people should get way more credit for having written the engine the powers Android's browser, Safari and Chrome...
Besides it not being open source, etc?
Also, it seems very misguided to use "Safari was released. [Safari] became successful."...
to imply that "AnythingElse was released. AnythingElse will become successful."
Literally pick any product that has ever not become a rousing success and you have plenty of counter-examples as to why that logic is faulty at best.
I still also find it be evidence of pandering to go out of the way to say "Safari is a success" rather than "WebKit". The sentiment of the tweet isn't even remotely accurate for "Safari".
That one is not that bad, I just take it to mean a humble start can become a fantastic product.
Now this one on the other hand, I can't figure out the state of mind leading to writing it and releasing that to the world:
> What’s missing from this conversation is that map usage is critical. […] Google’s maps are going to start degrading. Apple’s will get better. They’ll meet in the middle within 18 months.
I've seen that response several times now, and it's incredibly bizarre. Why should a guess at the potential future impact evaluation of how the thing is right now?
Based on kbutler's response above, my other post detailing the two options I see and the fact that my "Uh, it's not open source?" comment is downvoted, I'm inclined to think that there are some here that believe "Apple release -> auto(eventual) success".
I mean, as you say, what other basis is there for even making such a strange comparison between two vastly different projects (an open source rendering engine and a proprietary data set gained through partnerships and manual data gathering?