Posted on 11/17/2012 5:58:20 AM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Google has nearly completed work on a new version of Google Maps for the iPhone. Citing sources familiar with Google's plans, The Wall Street Journal reported that Google is now field testing the app outside of Google. It should soon be ready for Google to submit to Apple for approval.
Apple booted Google Maps from the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch earlier this year with the introduction of iOS 6. Google Maps was a part of iOS from the very first iPhone through September of this year -- a partnership that lasted more than five years. But Apple has been divorcing itself from Google's goods and services ever since the two began battling head-to-head with competing smartphone platforms.
Apple replaced Google Maps with its own mapping product. Embarrassingly for Apple, Apple Maps has been a complete failure.
(Snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.informationweek.com ...
Granted, some people reported “issues” with iOS 6 and finding destinations with the Apple maps. I do not dispute this, if they say that they had a problem, I believe them.
However, I live in the US, in a fairly low population state, with sporadic population areas (Utah) - I have not noticed the issues that everyone else is reporting. Wont’ say that there isn’t a problem, but I will say that these “Problems” haven’t affected me in the slightest. I actually prefer using the Apple maps to the old Google maps.
Why would I have a preference? Because the Apple maps use Vectored maps areas - as I zoom into them, I don’t need to “reload” new tiles - the street names appear when there is room for them to appear. Compared to Google, every pinch is a new download - which is inconvenient when you are navigating to a destination, and don’t know how close you are to a landmark. With poor service in my area (hello, AT&T) - the Apple vector mapping solution is a quite superior experience compared to the constant re-downloading you get with Google maps.
I have an iPhone 4s, an iPad, and an older iPod.
To date, the only thing I miss about the Google version of maps was that it was much easier to see their green/yellow/red traffic indicators than the new Maps’ dashed red line. Otherwise, the new version has been in all ways superior.
I worked in several design shops and architected numerous hardware solutions in my 20 years in IT, but none of them involved Apple products if for no other reason than the fact that we couldn’t get support for the OS once the system was running.
I wouldn’t use compatible or compliant interchangeably, as in my world, they mean two very different things.
That aside, I want to reiterate that I’m not bashing Apple. I’m simply stating that from a proprietary hardware/software matching standard, they’ve got the market cornered. Yes, while you can install OSX on “third-party” hardware, you make my point for me by showing that Gigabyte “mysteriously” works with their hardware. The point is that Apple only SUPPORTS hardware/software combinations that they design and develop. Like I said initially, you could install Windows 98 on a toaster if you had the motivation and drive to do so.
If you crack open an Apple product, most of the chips and mainboard components are either nebulously numbered or devoid of any manufacturer’s markings unless you know where to look. However, the same dozen or so PCB manufacturers in China make the overwhelming majority of hardware for today’s computing devices, so it stands to reason that there’s always going to be some particular brand that works better than others with Apple or even HP/Dell.
I think the crux of the matter is that Apple uses Intel design reference standards, like everyone else. However, whereas most Intel boards are still using some version of BIOS, Apple is using EFI. Many of the motherboards out now support EFI - however it doesn’t appear to have gathered much traction. Add to this the non NTFS format that Apple uses, and you have difficulties.
However, while Gigabyte appears to work seamlessly in booting OSX of various flavors; you can find guides to support practically any Intel/AMD motherboard out there.
Once you get it booted - they are pretty robust builds. The trouble, of course, is working around the various Unix subtlies that 95% of the techie population isn’t familiar with. I’ve done it, it wasn’t easy- in fact it was painful - but I’ve done it with a Core 2 Quad on an nVidia chipset board made by Asus.
All in all, we are pretty much in agreement. Apple has opted NOT to compete directly with MSFT, and thus make the “intentional” hiccup when it comes to booting the random Intel/AMD board. But, this approach seems to be working for them pretty well. Not too bad for a company that was started in a garage with just a few geeks and a lot of hope, sweat and dreams.
My biggest gripe with Apple is price point. I understand you’re buying a stable product with fewer inherent headaches, but I will never be able to justify spending the money they want for an Apple device when I could spend comparably on a custom PC with much more impressive specs and liquid cooling.
For the record, I LOVE EFI and have fully embraced it, but I don’t see it replacing BIOS quite yet. They have some bugs to work out.
What about the game consoles? Those are extremely closed off.
?????
Are you saying that's something new?
Garmin and Google have both had turn-by-turn voice directions (in country-appropriate voices) for years.
Welcome to the XXI Century ...
That is a very scary thought. GMAIL reads every email that passes through it's servers, and any attachments that are in those emails. It then uses an algorithm to direct marketing spam to people based on key words it finds.
It is entirely possible that within the gmail servers, there are proprietary documents that people don't even know about. What's more, there might be national security documents in there!
I should’ve qualified that by saying that the client had specific hardware needs that were not compatible with Apple’s proprietary configurations. That’s not to say that an Apple shop wouldn’t work, but we had to use Intel Xeon processors, nVidia GPUs and HP mainboards.
Even if we could’ve hacked the OS to work on the hardware, Apple wouldn’t have supported the OS configuration after the system was stood up, and in the enterprise world, that’s a big deal.
ifixit.com has good step-by-step instructions. I used them to upgrade RAM in my 2007-vintage Mini (not for the faint of heart), and to replace a hard drive in an old G3 iBook (not to be attempted by the sane). The older Minis are a pain, with putty knives to pry the case open and all that jazz; the recent ones, since mid-2010, it’s dead easy. There’s a panel on the bottom that screws off and the RAM is right there.
Bzzzzzt. Apple Mac Pros shipped with top of the line Intel Xeon processors, usually faster than ones available at release to Dell and HP, and nVidia GPUs. Pricing usually came in lower than equivalent Dell and HP workstations with similar specs. According to numerous PC pundits who tested them as pure Windows PCs, the main Apple logic boards could run Windows faster and more consistently than any other reference board. . . So it's illogical to conclude that your company's application could not run on them unless something was specifically added to the HP boards or BIOS to make them somehow different, I doubt there is any reason the Macs could not run it.
Guys... don’t shoot the damn messenger here. You’re obviously either Apple fanboys or Apple engineers. I am neither. I work in the finance industry now and they use Apples quite a bit. In the example I provided, the vendor was GE, the product was for PACS imaging (high-resolution radiology). If you have a problem with their practices, feel free to voice your concerns to them, but I guarantee that it’ll fall on deaf ears.
Fact is that the healthcare industry is a massive consumer of electronics and high tech equipment, and trying to get them to switch to Apple would be like trying to talk my dachshund out of her food bowl: it just won’t happen. HP ProLiant-class rackmount servers are going to provide much higher ROI due to the flexibility of the platform. As an engineer, I can make myriad changes to the functional architecture of the system on my own, without an HP engineer. Apple products require that you have one of their people do the work. I know, because I spec’d their platforms in the past.
Again, you’re barking at the wrong person here. I’m tech agnostic, prefer Linux for my OS and use it quite extensively at home and at work. I just happen to know an extensive amount of minutiae about Microsoft’s platforms due to decades in the industry and am employed to provide engineering support for that.
I’m not anti-Apple. I just said I would never be able to fiscally justify spending the funds that they ask for one of their machines when I could build an architecturally superior system with Windows OS for the same price (i.e. liquid cooling).
What crappy product?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.