Nope I meant what I wrote. Ditching Google for mapping was probably for two reasons: quit giving google data from iOS users using maps, and corollary to that, garner more support from those more security minded.
I value Apple’s stance on privacy, and I agree that Apple balking at Google’s terms to get user information from maps was the right decision. But I don’t believe it added any deposit of trust from Maps — on the contrary, its own implementation was so poor to get trashed in the press and was the main reason Scott Forstall was fired. I’ll say it again, based on personal experience (even recently), Apple Maps is still pathetic to be completely useless in many Asian countries. It didn’t and doesn’t garner any trust in those places.
All Maps apps have issues, it's not the easiest problem in the world to solve. I have no doubt Google Maps is better. But I also have no doubt that Apple should get megakudos for Apple Maps, even in countries where it works worst at least it's an option that doesn't require you being tracked.
I really, really wish they would have bought Waze. It was a big coup for Google to buy them up. Had Apple bought Waze, Apple maps would be much better today.
I’m pretty sure Waze never had their own maps, so that wouldn’t have helped Apple at all. And it would have only been a small aquihire since the Waze UI is too opinionated and non-Appley to be the default maps app anyway.
I believe you’re still misunderstanding the deposit of trust thing. It’s not about app quality at all or any of that.
Imagine “trust” is a currency, and each user had a “trust account” into which more trust could be deposited (or withdrawn). Apple made a large deposit of trust-as-currency into each user’s account when they axed the Google Maps relationship. Google was demanding a large tax/withdrawal from each user’s trust account. Apple stopped that, effectively making a large deposit of trust back into each user’s account.
Yes, Apple’s Maps has suffered and been inferior. But it isn’t taxing/withdrawing from each user’s trust balance.
I think it's gotten better but if I want to get to a place and trust that I can get to a really hard to find place I use google maps. From a user's perspective I agree. But if Apple could or did, I'd use Apple's search engine over Google's (a la the use case for duckduckgo), just so I wasn't funding Google. But I make compromises like anyone else.
Imagine you are now the only person who has to be satisfied with the confidence you feel in map products.
Otherwise you equally weight everything giving nobody any preference other than no data and no location.
Now you realize that everyone has disabled maps until you switch them on because you rely on API location information.
However the five years since you began enforcing privacy has allowed everyone to reach parity.. partly because nobody is piggy backing the others.
I can't think of the way I could trade off the what next situation I just described: get everyone using power hungry chips to get you a chance at the bad guy
.. how does it work if you balance the players?
